Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords],

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society [Lords] (Substituted Bill).

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Southern Railway Bill.
Great Western Railway Bill.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill.
Mid-Nottinghamshire Joint Railways Bill.
London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill.

Bills committed.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Lanark, Bothwell Division, in the room of JOHN ROBERTSON, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

COTTON LACE AND NET.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the production, actual or estimated, of cotton lace and net manufactures in this country for the six months before and the six months after the imposition of the safeguarding duties?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I regret that the particulars for which the hon. Member asks are not available.

CALCIUM MOLYBDATE.

Mr. ALEXANDER: 7.
also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a safeguarding duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been imposed on imports of calcium molybdate into this country from America; whether such imports are in unfair competition with any manufacture of the article in this country; whether he is aware that such an imposition is penalising British steel manufacturers in this country, as the use of this material shows a distinct saving in steel-production costs as compared with the use of ferro-molybdenum; and if this duty was taken into account in the recent safeguarding inquiry into the cutlery industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Calcium molybdate has been liable to duty, on importation under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, since the let October, 1921. I have received no complaints that imports of this material compete unfairly with any manufacture in this country. I am informed that Molybdenum steel is not used by the cutlery industry, and the existence of the duty has consequently no bearing whatever on the questions considered in the cutlery inquiry.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in regard to other steels manufactured in Sheffield this substance is being used in order to reduce costs of production, and having regard to the statement of his Department that the position of the steel industry gives cause for anxiety, will he revise a decision which prevents a reduction in costs of production?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I think it is vitally important, if a particular constituent part is essential to the production of highly finished steel, to have it produced in this country.

WORSTED.

Mr. FENBY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House what are the recommendations of the safeguarding inquiry on worsted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In accordance with the general practice, which I explained to the House in an answer that I gave on the 16th November last, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member, I am unable to make any statement on this matter at present.

Mr. FENBY: In view of the great importance of this question and the very large and numerous interests involved, can the right hon. Gentleman name an approximate date when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. All those considerations were before the Government when they decided on the general policy.

Mr. FENBY: As the matter is being considerably delayed, and as there has been no statement by the right hon. Gentleman since the Report of the Committee, will he, unless there is some real and necessary reason for the delay, make a statement to the House?

Mr. RILEY: Is it not a fact that the Committee concluded its labours some time ago?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is quite true.

Mr. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Report himself?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HARRIS: Why should not the House of Commons see it also?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The House of Commons will see it in due course. The reason why it has not been published at present is the reason which has been already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SILK MANUFACTURES.

Mr. ALEXANDER: 2.
further asked the production, actual or estimated, of silk and artificial silk manufactures in this country for the six months before and the six months after the imposition of the safeguarding duties?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sorry I cannot give the particulars desired by the hon. Gentleman. I can only say that in the second half of 1925 about 14,100,000 lbs. of artificial silk were charged with Excise Duty.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the Weights and Measures Acts are being strictly administered in every respect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: So far as I am aware the Weights and Measures Acts are, generally speaking, strictly administered by the local authorities under those Acts. There are, however, a large number of authorities concerned operating under very diverse conditions and it is inevitable that there should be some variation in local procedure. Every effort is made by the Board within the limits of their powers to secure effective uniformity in administration.

COMPANIES ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Companies Acts; if so, whether he intends to publish it; and whether and when he intends to give effect to its recommendations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received the Report.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that on this important matter there will be an early decision?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better wait until he and I have seen the Report.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he can hold out any hope that we ever shall see it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, certainly.

FOREIGN FILMS (IMPORT).

Colonel DAY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of American films imported into this country during the year 1925, together with the amount in linear feet, and value for the year 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of the hon. Member, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Description of Film.
1924.
1925.


Quantity Imported.
Declared Value.
Quantity Imported.
Declared Value.






Linear ft.
£
Linear ft.
£


Blank film
…
…
…
13,973,794
78,190
44,544,126
159,027


Positives
…
…
…
22,768,388
168,026
29,178,998
163,611


Negatives
…
…
…
4,018,217
598,864
6,310,053
608,550

Sir FRANK MEYER: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any Clause in any commercial treaty between this country and any foreign country which would prevent the imposition of an import duty on foreign films imported into this country based upon their exhibition value as distinct from the value of the material of which they are composed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no treaty impediment to the imposition of an import duty on foreign films on any basis whatever, provided that it is such that the amount of duty leviable is definitely ascertainable at the time of importation.

Sir F. MEYER: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any Clause in any treaty between this country and the United States of America which would preclude the imposition of a tax on films imported from the United States of America based on the hiring fees charged for their exhibition in this country?

Colonel DAY: As Great Britain is one of the largest importers of these films, will he say what step is contemplated by the Government to safeguard British interests?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is not the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked. He asked for a table of figures, which, as I have said, I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the table of figures promised:
The following statement shows the quantity and value of the various descriptions of cinematograph films imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered as consigned from the United States during the years in question:

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is in the negative.

RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICKHALL: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for a Return to be prepared and laid upon the Table giving particulars of the trade done between this country and Russia, and between France, Italy, Germany, and Russia during the period which has passed since the Anglo-Soviet Trading Agreement was entered into?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports, exports, and re-exports in respect of British trade with Russia last year, showing separately the total value of each principal commodity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will have statements prepared and printed, when ready, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that many steel works, equipped with the most modern and up-to-date rolling mills, are working short time, the Government will reconsider the decision of the Trade Facilities Act Committee to grant assistance for the extension of similar plant, seeing that such action will have a detrimental effect on employment at existing works in other districts?

Sir PARK GOFF: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the productive capacity of iron and steel is approximately 50 per cent. above pre-War; and why the Government has made a grant of £650,000 for extension of plant to the Appleby Iron Company, where there is ample modern steel-productive plant idle?

Captain MACMILLAN: 51
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer(1) whether the Trade Facilities Committee, in considering guarantees, takes account of the productive capacity of modern plant in the trade concerned in relation to the actual or estimated demand;
(2) whether, with reference to the recent decision of the Trade Facilities Committee to provide a guarantee of £650,000 for the extension of works of the Appleby Iron Company, the Committee took any advice from or consulted in anyway the firms at present owning complete and modern rolling-mill plant;
(3) whether he has received the protest of the Tees Conservancy Commissioners against the recent decision of the Trade Facilities Committee to provide a guarantee of £650,000 for the extension of the works of the Appleby Iron Company; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): With the permission of hon. Members, I will answer these questions together. The Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, in considering whether they shall recommend a guarantee to a particular undertaking, take into account the productive capacity of the modern plant in the trade concerned: and they did so before recommending the guarantee to the Appleby
Iron Company. It is not the practice of the Committee to consult or take advice from other firms engaged in the same business, nor are such firms generally in a position to express an impartial judgment on the merits of applications for guarantees. The decision to give a guarantee to the Appleby Iron Company was arrived at after very full consideration of all relevant circumstances, and I see no ground for reconsidering it. It must not be assumed that the effect of the guarantee will necessarily be detrimental to employment at existing works in other districts; on the contrary, I hope that the completion of the new works will result in the securing of orders for this country which at present do not come here, and in a diminution in imports of foreign steel.

Mr. SPEAKER: later: Captain Macmillan.

Captain MACMILLAN: May I have an answer to Question 51?

Mr. McNEILL: Question 51 has been answered.

Captain MACMILLAN: On a point of Order. May I inquire to whom questions should be addressed. If I put a question relating to trade, it is answered by the Treasury; and if I address a question to the Treasury, it is answered by the Board of Trade?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter, I think, to be settled among Ministers themselves.

Mr. McNEILL: My reply applies to 51, 52 and 53, which were answered with No. 5.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

STEAMSHIP "DELILIAN.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir LESLIE SCOTT:
10. To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has, since the question put to him by the hon. Member for Edge Hill on the 15th of December last, made a further investigation into the truth of the allegations referred to in that question, which had been made at an inquest upon the death by typhoid of one of the crew of the Leyland liner "Delilian," that the meat and water were tainted, and that six of the crew had been taken ill; whether the "Delilian" has since that date returned to this country; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. HAYES: On a point of Order. As a specific reference is made in this question to a question put by me in December last, am I in order in asking that the President of the Board of Trade should be allowed to give his answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I have no power in the matter. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) will be hero before the end of Questions.

WIRELESS EQUIPMENT.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of Class I vessels in the mercantile marine subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, of tonnages 1,600 tons to 3,000 tons, 3,001 to 6,000 tons, 6,001 tons to 10,000 tons, 10,001 tons to 15,000 tons, 15,001 tons to 21,000 tons, 21,000 tons and over, respectively; the number of Class II vessels of similar tonnages; and the number of Class III vessels of similar tonnages?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total number of ships registered in the United Kingdom which were at the beginning of February required to carry wireless apparatus under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, was 3,156. The classification of the ships depends on the number of persons carried, and it is not possible to give the exact number of ships in each class without examining all the ships' papers; but it is estimated that there are about 350 ships in Class I, about 800 in Class II, and about 2,000 in Class III.

STRIKE, AUSTRALIA (LOSS).

Sir F. HALL: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was approximately the loss sustained by British shipping owing to the late strike in Australia, involving British ships alone; and, seeing that owing to this strike a large amount of freight from Australia was transferred to foreign ships manned by crews receiving rates of pay some 50 per cent. lower than those paid on British ships, does the Government propose to take any action against the persons in this country who were concerned in the organising of this strike?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid it would not be possible to frame
any useful official estimate of the loss sustained by British shipping owing to the late strike in Australia. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that a lot of these goods were eventually brought by ships which were paying much lower rates to the men employed than the rates paid under the British flag?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes; I think that is quite true.

Sir F. HALL: Can that be to the advantage of the working men of this country?

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. COMPTON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that in connection with disputed claims on the part of British citizens for damage done by enemy action, there is at present no arbitrator, he can state how long the vacancy has existed; and whether the appointment of an arbitrator is being expedited, in view of the delay in dealing with these claims?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume that the question refers to claims under Clause 4 of the Annex to Section IV of Part X of the Treaty of Versailles. The arbitrator appointed to assess these claims resigned in October, 1924, and under an agreement which was come to in May, 1925, the majority of the outstanding claims have already been amicably settled. It appears, however, that certain claims will have to be referred to arbitration, and steps are, therefore, being taken with a view to the appointment, as soon as possible, of a new arbitrator.

Mr. COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the arbitrator's office was closed no notification was sent to those having claims outstanding, and that there is a general feeling among the outstanding claimants that the claims of big business having been satisfied these other claims are not receiving attention?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the impression is, and rightly is, exactly the opposite to that indicated by the hon. Member. The result of the agreement which was made by the late Controller
of the Clearing Office, was to expedite the settlement of the small claims on agreed terms, which were, I think, in the interest of the claimants. I understand that the bulk of the claims are being settled on those lines, and that arbitration will only be necessary in comparatively few cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

GUARDS BRIGADE (BARRACKS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that £422,500 is being spent on improving the barrack accommodation for the regiments of the Brigade of Guards, including the provision of lounges, armchairs, lawns, fountains, and bars de luxe, it is proposed to do anything to improve the conditions of Bordon camp?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The suggestion in my hon. and gallant Friend's question is unwarranted. Schemes for the replacement of hutted camps by permanent barracks will be proceeded with as opportunity occurs; the present conditions at Bordon Camp are equal to those in any other hutted camp in the United Kingdom. With regard to the expenditure on London barracks, no public money is being spent on armchairs or lounges; they are provided by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes without cost to the public. The fountain is an old war memorial originally provided from private funds and all that has been done is to place it in a more suitable position, with grass plots round it, at a cost of about £400. The new regimental institute is part of a block containing barrack rooms, dining rooms, and adult school; the approximate cost is about £15,000 out of the £371,500 being spent on accommodation for the Guards Brigade in London. I cannot identify the £422,500 referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to deal with the question of bars de luxe.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not only fair that the Brigade of Guards should in this respect enjoy the same facilities as the House of Commons?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure I know what a "bar de luxe" is, but if it be a similar one to that in the House of Commons, I do not think it is unduly favourable.

FOODSTUFFS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, in placing contracts for supplying bread and flour, he will insert a clause that will ensure a proportion of English-grown wheat being used?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar question on the 11th ultimo, and to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. HARRISON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate quantities of imported beef and home-fed beef consumed by the troops stationed in this country for the year 1925?

Captain KING: The approximate quantity of imported beef consumed by the troops in this country during the year 1925 was 10,000 tons (exclusive of some 400 tons of preserved meat). The amount of home-fed beef was negligible.

Mr. HARRIS: What is Imperial beef?

Mr. HARRISON: Why is home-fed beef negligible?

Captain KING: I have already, on various occasions, explained that the price of home-fed beef is so great that we cannot afford it.

Mr. HARRISON: Is it not a fact that home-fed beef suitable for troops is not more than and. or 2d. a lb. more?

Captain KING: We have obtained tenders for home-fed beef right up to the present year, and they have always been considered.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the percentage (value) of all foodstuffs, and of all other materials and stores purchased by his Department during the last financial year, which were of foreign origin?

Captain KING: Expressed as a percentage of the total value of War Office
headquarter purchases during 1924–25, the values of purchases of articles of foreign origin are: foodstuffs 1.29 per cent.; all other materials and stores 2.42 per cent., 92 per cent. of which related to copper, timber and lead. If petrol and oils, which are to a great extent refined in this country although the crude oil is almost entirely produced in foreign countries, are regarded as of foreign origin, the percentage of 2.42 would be increased to 3.68 per cent.

Mr. LAMB: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in connection with the "Buy British Goods" campaign now in progress, he will reconsider the previous decision of his Department not to give an effective preference to fresh meat of home production in any contracts issued by his Department for the supply of the Army at home stations?

Captain KING: I regret that, in view of the very large extra cost involved, it would not be possible to give an effective preference to fresh meat of home production. Practically all the frozen meat bought for the Army at home is of Dominion origin.

Mr. LAMB: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the preference that is given to other articles bought for the use of the troops cannot be extended to agriculture?

Captain KING: It certainly is extended to agriculturists. We always give a preference to home and, following that, to Dominion produce.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us of any English produce that is not asked for in this country?

Captain KING: I should like notice of that question.

CATTERICK CAMP.

Mr. LUNN: 24.
asked the Secretary or State for War whether any of the £1,655,000 to be spent at Catterick Camp for the purchase of additional land and development is for the extension of the agricultural training centre there or whether it is the intention of the War Office to close down agricultural training at the camp; and, if so, when this is to take place?

Captain KING: No portion of this sum is provided for the purposes mentioned. There is no present intention of closing down agricultural training at Catterick Camp.

Mr. LUNN: Is the War Office aware of the excellent reports that are now coming from Western Australia, from the group settlements there, of the men who have been trained at this agricultural camp, and of the satisfaction there is among all who have gone, and is the Department prepared to consider extending the work that is done so usefully at Catterick?

Captain KING: The Department is fully aware of the appreciative reports received from the countries to which the men have gone.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we not train them for work on the land in this country?

Mr. LAWSON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the agricultural training at Catterick Camp has been curtailed during the past 12 months or whether it is intended to limit it in the near future?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The development of the camp during the past 12 months has reduced the amount of arable land available for agricultural training. There is no intention of reducing it further at present.

Mr. LAWSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember promising me, on the occasion of the Estimates, that there would be no reduction of agricultural land for the purpose of training in this camp?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not remember that, but I am very anxious to continue the training at Catterick. Some of the agricultural land has had to go for building there, but I am going to do what I can to replace it.

Mr. LAWSON: In view of the work that is being done in this camp, to which tribute has been paid on every hand, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, not only to continue it as it has been in operation before, but to extend the work?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course, that is all bound up with the
question of expense. I should very much like to extend it, but I am not sure that I would be able to get the money.

Mr. LUNN: Would it not be better to be training these men who are finishing their service in the Army for work on the land, either at home or overseas, than let them join the unemployed army, as to-day?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly. That is the policy of the Government, and that is why vocational training has been carried on.

Mr. LUNN: But why not extend it?

ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS (ABASSIA, CAIRO).

Mr. THURTLE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there are a number of men belonging to the Royal Army Service Corps who have been stationed at Abassia, Cairo, for more than five years; and whether, seeing that the usual term of service at this station is four years, he can hold out any hope of these men being brought back to this country in the near future?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The normal period of service in Egypt is five years, not four. The men of the Royal Army Service Corps referred to, who, owing to special circumstances, have been kept beyond the normal period, will be brought home during the present trooping season. Reliefs have already been sent out.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMOKE POLLUTION, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the constant complaints which have been made against the pollution of the air and the stench caused by the smoke coming from Dixon's works on the south side of Glasgow, and the effect this is having on the health of the local residents; if he is aware that nothing has been done by the local authority to have any improvements carried out; and if he will take steps to see that this grievance is removed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am
aware that complaints of offensive odours from Messrs. Dixon's works have been made. These complaints have been carefully investigated and remedies sought by the local authority. Messrs. Dixon have, I am informed, recently taken certain steps, though it is still too early to say whether these will succeed in removing the cause of complaint. The matter is engaging the active attention of the local authority, and the Board of Health are keeping the position under close observation.

Mr. EVERARD: Does my right hon. Friend not think there is more pollution of the air of Glasgow by some of the speeches made there than by the smoke coming from Dixon's works?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if that question had been asked by one of the members here, he would not have been suspended?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think humour is regarded as allowable.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many generations Dixon's works, commonly known as "Dixon's Blazes" all over the world, have existed, and whether the grievance has been added to in recent years?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can tell us whether, owing to the new processes that have been adopted in recent years, unknown to the last hon. Member who put a question, in connection with by-products, the nuisance may not be caused by the setting free of noxious gases, causing a bad atmosphere?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand the local authorities are taking every precaution to see that that matter is remedied.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (SALARIES).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the claim of the staffs of the three Scottish agricultural colleges, based upon the Report of Lord Constable's Committee, to salaries equal to those paid to corresponding officers in England has been considered; what is the
amount of the sum involved; and whether provision will be made in the Estimates for the year 1926–27 for establishing equality of remuneration as between Scottish and English staffs?

Mr. WESTWOOD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the revised scale of salaries of the staffs of the Scottish agricultural colleges, as proposed by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, has been approved of by the Treasury; and, if so, is the increased cost thereby entailed to be provided by the Treasury or from additional local contributions?

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the approval in principle of the Treasury to the revised scale of salaries of the staffs of the agricultural colleges in Scotland, if he will recommend that the condition which qualifies the approval, namely, that the colleges should find the increased cost thereby entailed, be withdrawn, and thus place the Scottish agricultural colleges on an equal footing with those in England?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Treasury have agreed in principle to the proposal that the salaries of the staffs of the Scottish agricultural colleges should be revised, subject to the colleges being able to find the increased cost thereby entailed from additional local contributions in view of the fact that approximately 86 per cent. of the net expenditure on the colleges is already being met by Exchequer grants. The system of organisation and finance of agricultural education in Scotland differs from that in England, so that it is not possible to make a satisfactory comparison between the two countries. I regret that I can hold out no hope of the withdrawal of the condition that the increased cost of salaries should be met from local contributions.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of question 31, and say whether the Treasury will accept the responsibility for paying the Scottish instructors in these colleges at the same rates as they pay similar instructors working in English colleges?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The Treasury make it quite clear that as the contributions are so high in Scotland to the general work of the colleges, this must be met out of the resources.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely that is extremely unfair to the instructors concerned?

ERIBOLL ESTATE.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 32 and 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) under what powers the farm of Eriboll is to be sold by the Board of Agriculture, seeing that they bought it under the authority received from Parliament for the purpose of land settlement?
(2) whether, seeing that the farm of Eriboll, which the Board of Agriculture proposes to sell, marches with the estate of Melness, where there are about 100 crofters paying an average rent of approximately £2, he will consider, before finally deciding to sell Eriboll, the possibility of a scheme for the relief of the congestion in Melness by the settlement of some of the Melness crofters on Eriboll farm at rents representing, not a return on the inflated price paid by the Board of Agriculture for Eriboll at the time of purchase, but fair rents at the present value of the subjects?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The possibility of using Eriboll farm for granting enlargements to Melness crofters has been considered, but it was deemed impracticable, and for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question a week ago, the settlement of new holders on Eriboll cannot be achieved. The rents at which the proposed holdings were offered by advertisement and otherwise were fair rents fixed by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and were not based on the price paid for the estate. Statutory authority for the sale will he found in Section 7 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Was it not a fact that this estate was bought mainly to relieve the congestion, and was it supposed that men who were paying £2 rent in these congested areas would be able to advance £400 or £500?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is quite evident that all the efforts of the Board with regard to settlement have failed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that a great many of the big Liberal land owners in this part of the country are quite prepared to dispense with bog land, while retaining the best parts of their estates?

STEEL HOUSES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why contracts for steel houses for Scotland have not been allocated to the three firms selected upon the basis of an equal number to each?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this point made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland in the course of the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on the 11th February.

HOUSING SCHEME, CAMPBELTOWN.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Campbeltown Town Council have selected a site for the erection of houses, under a housing scheme, which involves the building over of an open space in that congested town; that this open space is the only playground for the school children and the young people of the working classes, is the ground also of the Campbeltown and District Football Club, and is also the only practicable show ground for the farmers in Kintyre, as well as the drying ground of a small laundry business employing several people; that protests have been made against this site being built upon by or on behalf of all these parties, and have been disregarded; and that there are at least three other sites, especially a site in Bread Street, which can be obtained for a small feu duty, where there are the ruins of old buildings which disfigure the town and the material wherefrom would tend to reduce the cost of building; and will he exercise his powers under the Housing Acts to prevent the destruction of this open space?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has been directed to the action of the town council in selecting this site, and I have had under consideration protests on behalf of the various parties named in the question. I have caused special inquiry to be made, and I do not consider that the circumstances are such as to justify me in interfering with the decision of the town council, but I am prepared to discuss the matter with my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In view of the gravity of covering over open spaces, I
would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the official of his office who originally went down to make an inquiry was the same official who, after the complaint was made, went down to revise his own report; and was that not a big strain to put on human nature? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some outside man altogether unconnected with the Scottish Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot, of course, accept any reflection upon the official concerned. But, as I said, I am willing to discuss this with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is no imputation. I am only treating him as an ordinary being.

BEACH DWELLINGS, CARDROSS AND HELENSBURGH.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 37.
asked the Lord Advocate why no proceedings under the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865, Section 3, have been taken by the Procurator-Fiscal against the concourse of people who, without the consent or permission of the owner or legal occupier of the land, camp on private property on or about the shore between Cardross and Helensburgh, more especially between Ardmore and Helensburgh; and will he now instruct or permit the Procurator-Fiscal to take the necessary proceedings under the said Act?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before this question is answered, seeing that it contains a suggestion to the Secretary of State for Scotland instructing him to interfere with the course of the Procurator-Fiscal, may I ask if the question is in order?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would point out that the question is to the Lord Advocate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I am not sufficiently versed in Scottish law. The hon. Member had better hear what the Lord Advocate says.

Mr. BUCHANAN: As on many occasions such questions have been refused, I want to have a precedent for the future.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the latter part of the question, in that case, really is in order, if the Procurator-Fiscal is independent of any Government.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further on the point of Order. I want to bring to your
memory, if I can, that the same question was put to the Secretary of State for Scotland last week, and the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated he was going to take no action on the matter. Yet here is the question down again. Can you give any explanation?

Mr. SPEAKER: Whether the question was the same or not, I cannot say.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is not the same question. It is a question about the same matter, but it is an entirely different question.

Mr. HARDIE: If this question is to be answered, I want to protest, because we were told in this House by you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, that whenever justice is in suspension, we are not qualified in this House to interfere with it. It is interfering with the course of justice for anyone to answer on the legal side.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Lord Advocate will say that in his answer.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): With regard to the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend, after careful consideration of the whole circumstances, was of opinion that criminal proceedings for contravention of the Day Trespass Act were inappropriate. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION (ISLAY).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are nearly a dozen distilleries in the island of Islay which collect for the Treasury several millions of revenue per annum; and whether, as it would greatly facilitate the conduct of the business of these distilleries if telephone communication was established with Islay, to and from which such shipping sails in connection with the said distilleries, and seeing that as a condition of establishing telephone communication the Postmaster-General has demanded a guarantee of £2,300 a year, and that the Treasury has by far the largest interest in the distilling industry in Islay, he will give the said guarantee to the Post Office?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I do not consider that the advantage to the public service of having telephone communication with
the island is sufficient to justify the Treasury giving a guarantee to the Post Office as suggested.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lot of shipping and occasional shipwrecks, and that it is a great hardship and danger to passengers to be unable to communicate with the mainland, and that, generally, on occasions of this sort when there is a call for the life-boat, the telegraphic arrangements are broken down; and does he not see the necessity for telephonic communication?

Mr. HARDIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he would not consider the laying down of a pipe connection between the mainland and the island?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

COAL COMMISSION (EXPERTS' FEES).

Mr. BARKER: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines who are the expert advisers to the Coal Commission to whom the fees of £3,650 were paid as stated in page 43 of the Supplementary Estimates before the House on 1st March, 1926; and the name of the economist who received £185?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The expert advisers are the Independent Accountants employed under the National Wages Agreements, and one other firm of accountants who undertook special investigation work for the Royal Commission. I will circulate a list of them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The economist is Mr. E. A. C. Robinson, Fellow and Lecturer on Economics at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

Following is the list of firms of accountants employed:

D. W. Coates, West, Grimwood and Company, 72–74, Victoria Street, S.W.1.
Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths and Company, 5, London Wall Buildings, E.C.2.
Gough and Wright, 267–8, Castle Street, Dudley, Worcs.
Haswell Brothers, St. John's Chambers, Love Street, Chester.
Holmes and Son, 33, Paternoster Row, E.C.
2091
Walter Hunter and Company, 24, Bridge Street, Newport, Mon.
W. B. Keen and Company, 25, Queen Victoria Street, E.C.4.
J. C. Kirk and Son, 38–39, Park Row, Leeds.
Mann, Judd, Gordon and Company, 8, Frederick's Place, E.C.2.
R. F. Miller and Company, Ramsden Square, Barrow-in-Furness.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company (W. B. Peat and Company), 11, Ironmonger Lane, E.C.2.
Price, Waterhouse and Company, 31, Mosley Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Edward Sparks and Son, 24, Grainger Street West, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Thomson McLintock and Company, 71, Queen Street, E.C.4.
Tribe, Clarke and Company, Albion Chambers, Bristol.
John A. Walbank and Company, 34, Grey Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Watling, Parker and Company, 40, Broad Street, Bristol.

EXPLOSION, ST. HELENS.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will consult with the Safety in Mines Research Board, so that every possible effort can be made to clear up the circumstances surrounding the explosion of firedamp at No. 3 Colliery, Clock Face, St. Helens, Lancashire, on 3rd March, 1925, resulting in injuries to two workmen?

Colonel LANE FOX: The Board was consulted at an early stage in the investigation and carried out experiments, but the evidence available is insufficient to enable my advisers to draw any definite conclusion as to the cause of this explosion.

Mr. TINKER: Does that mean to say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not pressing forward an inquiry after such a disaster as this?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. That is not the answer at all. The matter has come before the Board, and they have been conducting a full investigation. Up to now they have not achieved any definite result, but the investigation is not abandoned.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether those making the investigation have made quite sure that there was no firedamp in the
place, and, if so, have they made any investigations as to whether the explosion was due to a defective lamp or any cause of friction?

Colonel LANE FOX: That the cause of the disaster was due to a lamp has been disproved. As to firedamp, that has been one of the subjects of investigation.

Mr. HARDIE: Since the lamp has been held not to be defective, the explosion must have come from some form of friction. Have they investigated that?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; all such obvious things have been investigated.

Mr. HARDIE: Then are these results positive or negative?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have already told the hon. Gentleman they are so far negative.

STEAM ROAD VEHICLES.

Viscount SANDON: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines how much coal was used by the steam road vehicles in the United Kingdom last year; and the employment of how many miners does this represent?

Colonel LANE FOX: I regret that the information is not available.

Viscount SANDON: Is the Minister not aware that the real answer is, approximately, one million tons per annum and the employment of from 2,000 to 3,000 miners?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL.

Mr. OAKLEY: 43 and 44.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) the number of days the Court of the Tribunal has sat since it was established under the Railways Act, 1921; and the approximate date when the schedules of standard charges under the same Act are to take effect;
(2) what progress has been made by the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, in dealing with the standard revenue of the railway companies, and the schedule of standard charges for goods and passengers under the Railways Act, 1921?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Court of the Railway Rates Tribunal has sat in public
on 139 days. The members of the Tribunal have also had many private meetings and have acted as members of the Bates Advisory Committee in determining the future classification of merchandise and for other purposes. I understand that the Tribunal has practically completed the determination of the standard revenue of the amalgamated railway companies, but they have not yet fixed the date when the schedules of standard charges, which have yet to be settled, will come into operation. Full particulars of the Tribunal proceedings are given in the annual reports which are laid before this House.

STEAM ROAD WAGONS.

Viscount SANDON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that about 100 million gallons of foreign petrol would be required to be imported annually to do the work at present done by steam road wagons, using British coal, without allowing for their expanding business, he will see that steps are taken to secure the maintenance of this industry when the coal situation and road transport taxation are reviewed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All relevant considerations will be duly weighed before a decision is taken on this subject. I cannot, however, accept my noble Friend's estimate of the amount of petrol that would be required as an equivalent to the work performed by steam road wagons.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT.

Major GLYN: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department stands committed to a scheme of road improvement which will absorb all the anticipated receipts of the Road Fund up to the year 1930; and whether, in the administration of the Road Fund, he will accept the principle that, until largely increased grants are made towards the cost of maintaining existing roads, no further sums shall be allocated for the construction of new arterial roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: As regards future commitments, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to paragraph 3 of the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund for the year 1924–1925. As regards the second part of the question, in view of the continuous growth of traffic, a reasonable expenditure on the
widening of existing roads, the construction of new bridges, and of by-pass and other new roads is necessary to prevent the overloading and congestion of existing roads. Local authorities require assistance in carrying out these necessary works as well as in maintenance.

Major GLYN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that means that there is, in fact, no real surplus to the Road Fund until 1930?

Colonel ASHLEY: That has always been a matter of opinion.

Major GLYN: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, as there are now 39,258 miles of classified roads in England and Wales out of a total road mileage of 178,205, he will consider the advantage of having more detailed information regarding the character of the unclassified roads under the administration of rural district councils, since a good many miles of grass roads and others of a character quite unsuited for motor traffic are, under the existing Regulations, included in the local authorities' returns as part of the unclassified road mileage of the area?

Colonel ASHLEY: The figures quoted my my hon. and gallant Friend relate to Great Britain. I have not got the information he asks for in the form suggested, and I am sure he would not desire that local authorities should be asked to make a special return. I will certainly consider his suggestions in connection with any revision of the general returns which are made, with a view to increasing the information available.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, the circular which is being issued to-morrow will not call for this in formation as to the character of the roads from the rural district councils?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I do not think it will ask for this particular information.

Mr. HURD: It will show what proportion of the roads are really capable of carrying motor traffic.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the information does come in we shall get it, and be able to supply it to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the repair and maintenance of 90,000 miles of unclassified roads cost rural district councils between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 last year; and whether, in view of the increased revenue from motor taxation this year, he will allot the whole of this increase, in addition to the £750,000 already promised, to these roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am unable to accept the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member in the second part of the question.

SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee which is to consider the possibility of the Severn Barrage Scheme will also be instructed to go into the possibilities of smaller power stations by harnessing the stream of the Severn at various points nearer its source in preference to the possible heavy expenditure on a great barrage at the mouth of the river?

Colonel ASHLEY: On the recommendation of the Severn Barrage Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research the Government have decided to carry out certain preliminary investigations. When these have been completed the whole subject, including the points raised in my hon. Friend's question, will be further considered.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do I understand that this matter has been sent to the Committee?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I think they are considering it.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Your answer read as if it was the other way round.

Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will read over the question and the answer together.

OMNIBUSES.

Mr. HARRIS: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the secretary of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has written to each proprietor operating omnibuses in the metropolitan area suggesting that they should contribute to
a voluntary fund to provide compensation for those proprietors who have to withdraw their vehicles from service as a result of regulations made by the Minister, whether such a proposal has been made on his authority, and under whose control would such a fund be?

Colonel ASHLEY: The suggestion referred to, namely, that the omnibus proprietors should themselves consider the question of setting up a voluntary compensation fund, was made with my concurrence. If such a fund is formed, its control would obviously be a matter for determination by the proprietors concerned. At my request, however, the Committee and its officers have offered, if the suggestion is acceptable, to render any assistance they can in connection with the matter.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not this policy suggest that we are reducing the facilities for travel at the very time when there is this terrible difficulty—when at certain times of the day it is difficult to get seating accommodation when travelling home?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the public are being considered at all in these arrangements that are being made?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, the public are being considered, because probably if nothing is done there will be no tramways left, and the public will then have no trams to travel in.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any response, favourable or unfavourable, has been made to that offer?

Colonel ASHLEY: No official answer has been received, but I understand the majority of omnibus owners are willing to come into the arrangements.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to consider provincial tramway undertakings in a similar manner?

Mr. MORRISON: 77.
also asked the Minister of Transport how many omnibus proprietors there were in the London traffic area in December, 1924, and how many there are now?

Colonel ASHLEY: The number of omnibus proprietors licensed to ply for
hire in the Metropolitan Police District at 31st December, 1924, was 188, while the number at the present time is 212.

TRAFFIC REORGANISATION (UXBRIDGE ROAD).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the reorganisation of the traffic problem on the main Uxbridge Road and elsewhere, the convenience of the travelling public will be considered as the first essential?

Colonel ASHLEY: The proposed limitations of journeys which may be made by omnibuses plying for hire in the Uxbridge Road and elsewhere are being made solely in the public interest. I am fully satisfied that if no such limitations were imposed, essential public passenger transport services would have to be discontinued, with serious results to the travelling public, particularly to the working classes, who are largely dependent on the tramways for getting to and from their places of work.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable apprehension in Greater London with regard to this move, and can he assure me and the House that he will continue to do all he can to see that the people have the same travelling facilities in the future?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly I will give that assurance.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be equally reasonable to reduce the number of private cars, which equally with the omnibuses, add to the congestion?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that all this restriction of the number of omnibuses is beginning at the wrong end, and that he ought to restrict the number of passengers—coupon them—that is the way to get out of it?

MUNICIPAL TRAMWAYS AND OMNIBUSES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport how many authorities who run their own tramway service, plus a linking-up omnibus service, have lost money during the year 1925; how many authorities who own their tramways but no omnibus service have lost money; and how many of both sections have made profits during the same year?

Colonel ASHLEY: No official return of omnibus services run by local authorities is issued, but the hon. Member will find information as to the financial position of tramway undertakings, which, in some cases, include omnibus or trolley vehicle undertakings, in the Annual Tramway Return for 1924–25. Figures for 1925 are not yet available, and the financial year of local authorities is in most cases not complete until the 31st March in England and 15th May in Scotland.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 79.
also asked the Minister of Transport how many inquiries have been held during the year 1925 where local authorities have refused to grant licences to omnibus companies who desired to run a competitive service over the tramway routes; in how many cases has he upheld the action of local authorities; in how many cases has he granted the appeal of the omnibus companies; and how many cases are working on a compromise?

Colonel ASHLEY: There have not been any cases of the exact nature indicated in the first part of the hon. Member's question, but 20 inquiries were held in cases where the proposed omnibus route traversed a part of the tramway route. Of the appeals forming the subject of these inquiries, in eight the local authority were upheld, in one the appeal was allowed by Order, and in the remaining 11 cases an agreement was reached.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these so-called "compromises" are acting adversely to the local tramway undertakings?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I should not accept that. I think most of them have got a very fair compromise.

GYRATORY CONTROL.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there has never been any congestion or stoppage of wheeled transport in the vicinity of the Queen Victoria Memorial opposite Buckingham Palace; and if he will state the reason for adopting the gyratory system of traffic control at this point involving needless inconvenience and danger to pedestrians and additional expense in the matter of police supervision?

Colonel ASHLEY: The gyratory system of traffic control has been proved to be advantageous both abroad and in this country, at traffic junctions where the lay-out is suitable, in facilitating the movement of traffic and in reducing accidents. In my opinion the junction at the Victoria Memorial is suitable for the purpose, and the system has been put into operation there experimentally. The period of trial has not yet been sufficient to show its effect on the number of accidents. It is proposed to erect illuminated traffic signs which, it is hoped, will result in a reduction in the number of police employed on traffic duty at this point.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no criticism was made on the question of the principle of gyratory control, but is it not a fact that gyratory control is in a place where congestion has occurred, and that no congestion has occurred in the vicinity of the Queen Victoria Memorial?

Captain A. EVANS: Is it not a fact that no accidents of any kind have occurred since the new system has been in operation?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I have already pointed out, this system is only in the experimental stage.

Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that the danger to pedestrians is far less under the new system, because they have only to look one way for the traffic.

ROYAL PARKS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 82.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the ever-increasing traffic in the centre of London, his Department has given consideration to the suggestion of utilising the north, south, and east sides of Hyde Park to form, in combination with the adjacent streets, a one-way traffic system each side of the present boundary of the park?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should strongly deprecate any action which would adversely affect the amenities of the parks unless a ease of overwhelming necessity arose. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who concurs in my views. If
effect were given to the proposal of the hon. Member, it would necessarily involve the use of the roadways in Hyde Park by all classes of traffic, including locomotives, heavy lorries and omnibuses. In my view, there is no need from a traffic point of view to take any such action, and I am hopeful that the scheme for dealing with traffic at Hyde Park Corner, already made public, will meet present requirements.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained the opinion of the Home Secretary on that point?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am working in conjunction with the First Commissioner of Police.

Mr. HAYES: Will the Minister of Transport see that the amenities of the park are not affected by any police regulations dealing with traffic in that way?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary, who yesterday expressed very sound views on this subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "Unsound!"]

LOCAL TAXATION.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will take into consideration the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, 1914, with a view to giving effect to those which would tend to relieve the inequalities of burdens imposed by the present system?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply given on the 25th October, 1920, by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the present Member for the Devizes Division which summarised the action taken to carry out the recommendations of this Committee. As regards the matters remaining to be dealt with at that date my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, has, as the hon. Member is aware, prepared a scheme for dealing with the Poor Law service and the consolidation of the public health grants.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PRINTING ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. NAYLOR: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the publication of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Printing Establishments, in view of the fact that the Committee was appointed in 1923, completed the taking of evidence in December 1924, met to consider its Report in July 1925, and that at present the Report has not been submitted to this House?

Mr. McNEILL: I am informed that a revised draft of the Report has been prepared and that the Committee will be meeting again to consider it as soon as it has been printed.

BLIND SHORTHAND TYPISTS.

Colonel DAY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any blind shorthand typists are employed in Government Departments; and, if not, whether the possibility of the employment of such disabled persons has been considered?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. G. W. H. Jones) on 24th February. In addition to the ex-service men there mentioned, two blind women are employed in the Ministry of Health as shorthand writers.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not the fact that these blind shorthand writers are very efficient, and will he consider increasing their number?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no reason to think they are inefficient.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council have four blind typists who are doing excellent work?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I do not know that.

SOUTHBOROUGH EXAMINATION.

Mr. ROBINSON: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the results of the examination of temporary civil servants for permanent appointments will be announced; and if he can state the reason for the delay in announcing the result?

Mr. McNEILL: I am informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that the results of the Southborough examination should be in the hands of candidates within the next two or three days, and that the number of candidates who qualified at the examination is 8,248. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 4th March to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker).

EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Mr. HURD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Dominion as well as British preparations now proceeding for the Imperial Economic Conference, he will announce the decision of the Government as to the provision and allocation of the promised £1,000,000 grant to further the marketing of Empire produce in this country

Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to answer this question on behalf of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who is unavoidably absent. As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question on 1st March, His Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to make an announcement, as details of the arrangements proposed are under discussion with the Dominions, but they hope to do so shortly.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before announcing the original grant of £1,000,000 to assist in the marketing of Empire produce, he had considered how the money could be usefully expended; whether he can state whether, and how, it is to be expended; and whether he can assure the House that he will not propose any further similar grant until the Government has decided on the purposes to which it should be applied?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The grant was announced by the Prime Minister's speech of 17th December, 1924, after it had been approved in principle. Detailed proposals for expending it for the development of Empire trade and Empire marketing were naturally not drawn up at that date. The procedure appears to be quite reasonable, and indeed in the circumstances the only one practicable. In reply to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply
given yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the hon. Member for North Bradford.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not a fact that this money was voted, and that it has taken 12 months for the Government to find out that there is no useful way in which it can be spent?

Captain A. EVANS: May I ask will this amount lapse at the end of the financial year, and is it liable to be surrendered to the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These are questions which carry us far beyond the original question on the Paper.

SUPER-TAX.

Mr. HURD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the Super-tax due on 1st January, 1925, had been paid on 1st April, 1925; whether the Inland Revenue are taking drastic action this year to insure that payment of Super-tax due on 1st January is paid before 1st April; and what proportion of the Super-tax due has so far been collected?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am unable, without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to state what percentage of the Super-tax due (i.e., in respect of which a demand for payment had been issued) on 1st January, 1925, had been paid on 1st April, 1925. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the main assessment of the year's Super-tax proceeds almost continuously between the months of October and April, and that the amount paid by the 31st March in any year would include a considerable sum which was not assessed, and therefore was not payable, until after 1st January in that year. As regards the year 1924–25, the amount of Super-tax collected by 31st March, 1925, was approximately 64 per cent. of the amount assessed at that date; the corresponding percentage, at the end of February this year in respect of the duty already assessed for the year 1925–26 is about 50 per cent. The collection of the Super-tax, I am glad to say, is proceeding satisfactorily, and this is to be attributed to the fact that the taxpayer has responded to an improvement in the machinery of assessment directed to the
earlier issue of assessment notices and possibly also to the diminution of the tax effected last year.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many pre-War pensioners, who are debarred from benefiting under the Pensions Increase Acts, 1920 to 1924, on account of the age limit, are suffering hardship; and does he propose to introduce legislation for the abolition of the age limit, or modification thereof, at any early date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 1st March to the hon. Member for the Western Isles Division of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty.

TEXTILE MATERIALS (CUSTOMS REGULATIONS).

Mr. J. HUDSON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in order to carry out his new Customs Regulations, packages of patterns of textile materials, not subject to tax, are being stopped for search by the joint action of the postal and Customs authorities; that, in a case raised by the Huddersfield Chamber of Commerce, 19 days elapsed for a postal package to reach a Huddersfield firm from Montreal; that this firm was asked by the Customs House to send a representative to Liverpool to see the package searched; and whether he can provide any means to secure British firms against such requirements by the Customs authorities and against the loss of trade which results from such delays?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a standing prohibition against the importation of dutiable articles by letter post, and under the Post Office Act, 1908, any letter packet suspected to contain contraband is handed to the Customs authorities by the Post Office. The Act requires that before the packet is opened notice in writing shall be given to the addressee to enable him to be present at the opening, should he so desire. It is inevitable that on occasions a suspected packet may be found to contain only goods not liable
to duty, as in the case to which the hon. Member refers. It is not the fact, however, that in this case the addressee was required to attend at Liverpool. Opportunity is always given for suspected packages to be opened at any Customs or Excise office selected by the addressee, and in the present case the package was actually opened at Huddersfield. I am unable to say how long the packet took to come from Montreal, but I am informed that it arrived here in the period of Christmas pressure.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his policy the Act of 1908 has been very considerably extended by the fact that postal packages containing ordinary textile materials that possess no silk article or other article are liable to be taxed; and will he carefully consider a modification of that Act of 1908 in view of the very great disadvantages the textile manufacturers are now suffering as a result of that policy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All the information I have received from a great many quarters shows that the textile manufacturers are not suffering any great disadvantages as a result.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the most important textile company of all, which shows that this is working smoothly?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have followed it with great interest.

BONUS SHARES.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that considerable sums are being allotted year by year to shareholders in industrial concerns in the shape of bonus shares; that, according to a recent decision in the House of Lords, these bonus shares are not assessable for Income Tax or Super-tax; and does he propose to introduce legislation to strengthen the existing Income Tax and Super-tax Acts to cover this form of income?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member appears to be under a certain misapprehension. So far as Income Tax is con-
cerned, the profits of an industrial company are assessed irrespective of the manner in which they are disposed of, and the conversion of accumulated profits into bonus shares therefore does not involve any loss of duty. As regards Super-tax, I am aware of the legal limitations, as indicated by recent judicial decisions, of the power to charge this tax, where accumulated profits are distributed in the form of shares or debenture stock. The hon. Member will not expect me to express an opinion at present as to whether further legislation is called for.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this custom of giving bonus shares is casting one of the greatest of burdens on our industry, and can he see his way to meet it with a special form of taxation?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, when a company accumulates reserves, it is for the purpose of developing business, and that that is good for the country and for the industry, and does them both great financial good

INCOME TAX.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to exempt educational establishments, such as Brighton College, from paying Income Tax in the future; and, if so, whether he will state the terms under which such exemption will be made?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities on the 11th February. I am sending him a copy of that reply, to which I am unable usefully to add anything.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great advance that has been made in recent years by Brighton College, and can he not see his way to help forward that advance by doing something for it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad to hear there has been an advance, but I do not see my way to alter the general law on the subject on account of it.

FOREIGN PLAYS (TAXATION).

Sir F. HALL: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the American authorities collect a tax on foreign plays produced in that country before the theatre management pay the royalties over to the author; whether royalties paid by British theatres to American authors in 1925 were subject to any taxation in this country; and, if so, on what amount such taxation was paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the position in the United States. With regard to royalties paid by British theatres to foreign authors, I am unable to say to what extent such payments were subject to taxation here in 1925, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of the adequacy of the existing machinery of the British Income Tax in this connection is receiving my careful consideration.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of thousands a year go in royalties to these American authors, and is there not some way by which they can be taxed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As to the figures, I could not give an answer on the spur of the moment, but I am giving the matter my careful consideration.

Sir F. HALL: In view of the need for economy, is the right hon. Gentleman considering this in connection with the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already said that I am giving the matter careful consideration.

REPARATION PAYMENTS REPORT (PRINTING).

Mr. HARRIS: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the recently-published Report of the Agent-General for Reparation Payments, issued by the Stationery Office, was printed in Berlin?

Mr. McNEILL: The Report is not a British Government document; but the British Stationery Office acts as agent for the Reparation Commission for the publication and sale of the English text of Reports issued by the Commission. The type of the recently published Report
was, presumably for reasons of convenience, set up in Berlin, where the Agent-General has his office.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be more satisfactory to print on the document where it is printed, instead of putting it in an English cover, apparently to conceal its origin?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a matter of opinion.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (PALACE OF ART).

Mr. CADOGAN: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the liquidators of the British Empire Exhibition have offered the Palace of Art at Wembley to the Government for a permanent museum; whether the Government have accepted the offer; and, if so, with what object in view?

Mr. McNEILL: No such offer has been made. The second and third questions do not, therefore, arise.

MOTOR CARS (PARKING PLACES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the difficultly now experienced in Central London for space whereon cars can be parked, he will consider utilising a section of the Horse Guards Parade for this purpose when not required for ceremonial or other purposes?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that to give effect to this suggestion would interfere with the use of the Parade for ceremonial purposes, and would involve substantial expenditure on re-surfacing so as to render it suitable. Further, I see no justification or necessity for the use of open spaces of this character for such a purpose. I would deprecate anything which would destroy the amenities of St. James's Park.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to whom these 30 or 40 cars belong that are regularly parked there?

Colonel ASHLEY: I often go through the Horse Guards Parade, and I do not think there are ever more than a dozen,
and I understand that those belong to gentlemen working in Government offices opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (ACCOUNTS).

Mr. R. HUDSON: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that a number of mistakes are made by his Department in rendering accounts for telephone service, and that when these mistakes are admitted a curt official printed notification of the adjustment is sent to the subscriber, he will consider the advisability of adding a line at the end expressing his Department's regret at the inconvenience caused to the subscriber by the Department's mistake?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The printed notification referred to was drafted to meet more than one type of case, and, before issue, where the Post Office is satisfied that a mistake has been made it is customary to add in manuscript an expression of regret. I am sorry if this has been omitted in any particular instance. To avoid risk of omission in future, arrangements are being made for the use of a separate printed form for this type of case.

WIRELESS FEES.

Colonel DAY: 86.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of money collected in respect of wireless fees to the last convenient date, together with the amount already paid to the British Broadcasting Company; and if the number of licence holders has increased from March, 1925, to the last convenient date known, and, if so, in what comparison to the previous year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The fees for wireless receiving licences are payable yearly in advance and the total amount collected up to the end of last month was approximately £2,147,000. The amount already paid to the British Broadcasting Company is £1,114,000. The number of licences in force on the 28th February last was approximately 1,906,000, as compared with 1,258,000 on the 28th February, 1925.

Colonel DAY: As the number has greatly increased since the 1st March,
does it not follow that the public will not get anything else but the piece of paper issued to them for the payment they have made?

FOREIGN STORES AND MATERIALS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 87.
asked the Postmaster-General what was the percentage value of foreign stores and materials of all kinds purchased by his Department during the last financial year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In the purchases of the Post Office for the last financial year, and the engineering equipment installed for it under contract, articles or components of foreign manufacture represented one-half of one per cent. I have no information as to the percentage represented by foreign raw materials in the articles of British manufacture.

IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECT (ITALY).

Mr. CAPE: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs the following question: If he has any information in reference to William Ellison, who is at present in prison in Italy; can he say when Mr. Ellison's appeal is likely to be heard, and whether he has any further information he can give the House on this case?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has reported that Mr. Ellison's appeal will be heard on the 10th March (to-morrow). Usually an appeal of this kind is not heard until about two months after the case has been sent to the Court of Appeal. His Majesty's Consul at Florence has stated that Mr. Ellison is being very well looked after, well treated, and well fed. His Majesty's Ambassador understands that the sentence, if confirmed, would not entail solitary confinement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister now tell us how far he proposes to go with the business to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): We hope to get the first three Orders, but in the event of the first two Orders taking
longer than I anticipate, I do not propose to ask the House to continue sitting on the third Order after Eleven o clock.

Mr. MAXTON: In regard to the third Order, may I ask if the Government propose accepting the Amendments standing on the Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not examined those Amendments, but my

impression is that the answer is in the negative.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 123.

MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCE SUPPLY (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to produce and supply milk and dairy produce.

This Bill is one of a series of Bills introduced by private Members, mainly on this side of the House, in order to deal with cases where there are flagrant instances of profiteering, monopolies, combines, or difficulties put in the way of the supply of articles that are essentially necessary to the poorer classes
in this country. I make no apology for moving the introduction of the Bill this afternoon, and I hope it will commend itself to at any rate a number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because the reasons that have led to my bringing it forward are mainly to be found in the evidence which the Front Bench on the opposite side have been good enough to secure for us through the Food Council which they set up. Like most other Members of the House, I have been through the Reports of the Food Council very carefully, and I find, from the last interim Report, that there appears to be no doubt whatever in the minds of the Food Council—who are by no means a biased party organisation—that there is very considerable false dealing in the supply of milk and dairy produce to the people of this country. The revelations of the mean methods adopted in order to supply milk in quantities other than those for which the people have paid are very striking, and, in addition to that, we find in the first Report of the Food Council—

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: On a point of Order. Is this Notice of Motion in order? It says:
Bill to enable local authorities to produce and supply milk and dairy produce.
I venture to submit that no local authority produces milk; it is the cows that produce milk.

Mr. BECKETT: When we see the shareholders and directors of dairy monopolies taking the dividends, they do not say that the cows have produced the milk. We find in the first Report of the Food Council that, although the prices of all foodstuffs have gone up in great proportion, the prices of milk, butter, and eggs, which are the chief products on dairy farms, show that the friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman have been milking the public if not the cows. We find that eggs have actually gone up 172 per cent. above the price in July, 1914, milk 90 per cent. and butter 80 per cent., and that in spite of the fact that the increase in the cost of living when the Food Commission gave these figures was only up 74 per cent. I hope that hon. Members will give this subject particular consideration, because of the tremendous importance of these three staple items of diet.
Practically every medical authority in the country will tell you that milk, butter and eggs are the food from which the vitamines come which create brains. There is a great deal of difference among medical authorities on the hereditary principle with regard to intelligence, but there is no difference of opinion as to the fact that, however many brains a child may be born with—and there are just as many brains given to children in slums as to children in other places—if it be deprived all through its younger life of an ample supply of dairy produce, which supplies the vitamines for the brain and other parts of the human organism, then it is impossible for that child to grow up an intelligent and useful citizen of the Empire. [Interruption.] Whenever Bills enabling local authorities to supply necessities of this kind are introduced we are always—

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is going to continue to be impossible for Members sitting quite near a speaker who is speaking very plainly to hear what is being said owing to the rude interruptions of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the conversation was general, but I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) to proceed with his speech without further interruption.

Mr. ERSKINE: Is it not a fact that the only rude person was the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) herself?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say it is rude to describe interruptions as "rude."

Mr. BECKETT: Whenever we introduce Bills giving a municipality permissive power—not forcing them—to deal with flagrant profiteering in any article of necessity we are always opposed by some hon. Gentleman on the other side, who says, "Yes, but the trouble is that municipal trading always means losing money, and that always means an added burden on the rates." Hon. Members will not be able to say so this time, because not only have you had municipal trading—

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member please address his remarks to me, and not to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. BECKETT: Not only have you had municipal trading in milk in a number
of instances in this country without a single loss, but you have actually at the present time a report issued by the municipality of Haverfordwest through their Town Clerk telling us that they have been able, through their municipal depot, to supply milk at a price lower than that at which it is sold in surrounding districts, and moreover have been able to devote profits from that municipal milk depot towards the relief of the rates. They also tell us that are paying the producers of milk more for their produce than the retail distributors in the trade. When the present Minister of Health was Lord Mayor of Birmingham he caused a special Committee to go into the question of the municipality supplying milk and dairy produce. He appointed the Town Clerk, the Borough Treasurer, and other highly skilled persons to go into the matter, and they issued a report that it should be adopted, and, if it had not been for a particular stunt whereby the Lord Mayor was taken away in order to come to London, there is no doubt that it would have been carried into operation.
I want to point out this one fact. The majority of the municipalities in this country are to a great extent controlled by people who belong to the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and there is no fear of them going into municipal trading unless it is strictly necessary in the interests of their people. I suggest that it is a very peculiar thing that what I may term the big interests who are represented in this House should refuse to give these powers to municipalities. It must only be because they are afraid that their own party in the country will adopt, measures put forward by the Socialist party in the House of Commons in order to relieve themselves from exploitation by their own people. I suggest that this question of the supply of milk and dairy produce is a very important one, and I ask the House to give this Bill a First Reading in order that we may put our proposals down in black and white for the consideration of the House and in order that they may have a much fairer hearing and more consideration than I have been able to obtain this afternoon.

Captain GEE: I rise to object to this Bill. The hon. Member finished his speech by talking of big interests. As far as I am concerned, I am connected
with no big interests other than the Division which I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member commenced his speech by talking of the real necessity for introducing this Bill owing to the monopolies, and yet the Bill itself will only produce another monopoly, just exactly the same as the local councils have produced and own the monopoly of the tramways. It would only be another instance of them entering into competition with a private individual who would have to stand his own losses, whereas the losses of the milk producing council, owing to mismanagement and lack of business methods, would have to be borne by the rates and paid for by its rivals in the industry. I am afraid that this Bill, like several Bills that have been introduced by Members on all sides of the House, has only been produced to die at birth, and I, for one, object to so much time of the House being taken up by private Members' Measures and Motions, because, when all is said and done, I beg leave to say that we were sent here to represent the whole country, and not one particular part or our own particular fads and fancies.
The hon. Member spoke about borough councils already selling milk. I agree, but I think, if he will take as much time as I have taken to go into this question, he will find that very few of those Councils who sell milk keep cows. They buy the milk and retail it, and it would only be another instance—I do not wish to use offensive terms—of them gaining experience in private enterprise at the municipal expense. The last point I wish to raise is this: If this thing be really necessary and if the desire of the hon. Member behind this Bill is really to produce a supply of good milk and fresh wholesome butter and food for the poor classes of this country, why does he not leave well alone, and, instead of bringing in this Measure, foster the spirit of dairy farming on a business scale among the co-operative societies? As a matter of fact, that is the one example where they have genuinely tried and tried with most disastrous financial results

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to produce and supply milk and dairy produce.

The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 222.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A.O.J.(Warw'k, Nun.)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davison, Sir W.H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M. (Hackney, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Huntingfield, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edwards, John H.(Accrington)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elveden, Viscount
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.
England, Colonel A.
Jackson, Sir H.(Wordsworth, Cen'l)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jacob, A. E.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Betterton, Henry B.
Evans, Captain A.(Cardiff, South)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blundell, F. N.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Finburgh, S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ford, sir P. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brass, Captain W.
Forrest, W
Lloyd, Cyril E.(Dudley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy.
Loder, J. de V.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault Lieut.-Col Andrew Hamilton
Looker, Herbert William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gee, Captain R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lumley, L. R.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Goff, sir, Park
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(I. of w.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grace, John
MacIntyre, Ian


Bullock, Captain M.
Grant, J. A.
McLean, Major A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan Captain H.


Burman, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gretton, Colonel John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A 


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F.(Dulwich)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A.(Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mitchell W. Lane (Streatham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Charteris, Bridadier-General J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, G. (Lambath, Kennington)
Morrison, H.(Wilts, Salisbury)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L.(Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cope, Major William
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Couper, J. B.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nuttall, Ellis


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hills, Major John Waller
Oakley, T.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hogg, Rt. Hon, Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Basil E.(Devon, Barnstable)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)


Pielou, D. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queens Univ., Belf'st.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Ramsden, E.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warner Brigadier-General W. W.


Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Smithers, Waldron
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Com. C (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Remnant, Sir James
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Wilson, R. R.(Stafford, Lichfield)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stoot, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Womersley, W. J.


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Salmon, Major I.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Templeton, W. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)



Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandon, Lord
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Colonel Gibbs And Major Sir H. Barnston.


Savery, S. S.
Tinne, J. A.



Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A.(Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T.(Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J.H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro,W.)


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Daviesm Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R.H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R.C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[4.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Haslam, Henry C.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Astor, Viscountess
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briggs, J. Harold
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mantague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Hardie.


Harris, Percy A.
Robert, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Christie, J. A
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fermoy, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Finburgh, S.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Balniel, Lord
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Forrest, W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cope, Major William
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Berry, Sir George
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gower, Sir Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grace, John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grant, J. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gretton, Colonel John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hartington, Marquess of


Burman, J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
England, Colonel A.
Haslam, Henry C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.




Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hilton, Cecil
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron


Holland, Sir Arthur
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Murchison, C. K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nuttall, Ellis
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Huntingfield, Lord
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Templeton, W. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jacob, A. E.
Pielou, D. P.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tinne, J. A.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wells, S. R.


Loder, J. de V.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wheler, Major sir Granville C. H.


Looker, Herbert William
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lumley, L. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacIntyre, Ian
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Macmillan Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Malone, Major P. B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Margesson, Captain D.
Savery, S. S.



Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Captain Gee and Major MacAndrew.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 11th June, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL,

"to amend the Law as regards music and dancing licences in parts of certain Home Counties and in certain county boroughs adjacent thereto," presented by Mr. ERNEST ALEXANDER; supported by Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Groves, Major Crawfurd, Mr. Looker, Mr. Rhys, and Mr. Charles Crooke; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

BERMONDSEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (STREET TRADING) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Sandeman; and had appointed in substitution: Sir James Agg-Gardner.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill); the Lord Advocate; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out from the words "That," to the end of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
This House, while willing to render financial assistance to meet the deficit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund of Northern Ireland in order to safeguard the rights of unemployed insured persons, cannot assent to a Bill which would establish an unfair differentiation in the methods of dealing with the respective deficits in the Unemployment Insurance Funds of this country and of Northern Ireland.
I desire as clearly as possible to state the reasons which have moved my hon. Friends and myself to put; down an Amendment, the effect of which would be to turn this into a loan to the Government of Northern Ireland rather than leave it in its present form as an out-and-out gift. We made it clear during the discussion on the Financial Resolution that in this part of the House there was the greatest sympathy with the industrial misfortune which had overtaken Northern Ireland, and certainly during that Debate no obstacle would have been offered in our ranks to any proposal which, in our judgment, would have had the effect of assisting Northern Ireland without imposing an undue penalty upon the taxpayers in Great Britain. That is precisely our spirit to-day, and in moving this Amendment, which will alter the whole character of the contribution, I cannot make it too plain that we have every desire to try to safeguard the position of the industrialists in linen and in shipbuilding, the industries particularly affected in Northern Ireland, and that we firmly believe that our proposal would not in any way be an injustice to them.
This proposal may be advanced to-day on three or four general grounds. First of all, I think we are entitled to plead the ground of the undeniable burden which in different directions we are
shouldering in Great Britain. After all, we owe a very clear duty to the mass of taxpayers, direct and indirect, in our own country. Since the War concluded, and during the early years of the settlement, it has become increasingly plain to all of us that we are to shoulder in Great Britain a very large part of the post-War obligations. We have made very heavy sacrifices, as the earlier debate showed, in our return to the gold standard. We made a very heavy sacrifice in writing off one-half of the debts due to us by our Allies in the War. We made a further sacrifice in the Italian debt settlement which was recently discussed, or at all events announced, and I think most hon. Members will agree that in the other post-War debt settlements, which we have still to overtake, we stand on the whole to lose on the transaction. All these facts are before us to-day together with the dead-weight debt of £7,700,000, and all the other obligations, which I have not time to describe but which are perfectly relevant matter when we come to consider a new proposal of an exceptional character imposing a fresh burden upon the masses of our people. That is an environment which I think no Member of the House can ignore, and accordingly we are obliged to view all new proposals for fresh burdens in the light of the vast obligations we have already undertaken.
Let us look, in the next place, to the precise terms of the scheme that is before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his White Paper describes this as mutual re-insurance, but a little later in the Debate it will not be difficult to prove that there is very little in the proposal which is of an insurance nature at all. Broadly and generally speaking, the scheme is that within the limits of the remaining period of this financial year we are to provide about £680,000 for this equalisation payment towards the unemployment insurance fund of Northern Ireland. That is a payment which, on the basis of population, is designed to bring the contribution into something like parity with the position of our unemployment insurance fund in Great Britain. Then for a period of four years ahead, we are to pay, in round figures, a sum which may be £875,000, subject to this condition that if by any chance that greater obligation rises to £1,000,000 per annum, then and only then will the Chancellor of the
Exchequer be entitled to intervene and re-open the whole settlement or arrangement without being exposed to any charge of breach of faith.
Let the House observe the liability that is involved for the people of Great Britain, the £680,000 this year and these four payments unless there is a dramatic improvement, of £875,000—in all rather more than £4,000,000. Assuming that our later payments come nearer to the £1,000,000 than to the £875,000, it is not unfair to suggest that we may expend in all, by way of what I think I call perfectly fairly an out-and-out gift, anything between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, and, in my judgment, rather nearer the £5,000,000 than the £4,000,000. That is a very remarkable payment to make at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is cutting down grants to local authorities in equal if not greater distress in Great Britain and when, according to all accounts, although we dare not anticipate legislation, an Economy Bill is on the stocks providing for all kinds of niggling reforms and changes, the nature of which we cannot investigate to-day. In those circumstances, it is plain that we are committed to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 under this proposal in a time of exceptional difficulty in finance, and in the midst of circumstances where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying "No" to legitimate and urgent demands because of our own social distress.
Then may we notice the so-called scheme of mutual insurance or reinsurance that this proposal involves? I cannot help thinking that that part of the White Paper was introduced for the express purpose of gilding the pill in this House. Anyone who has regard to the circumstances of the Northern Ireland Unemployment Insurance Fund will see at once that there is very little reinsurance about it. The broad facts are that Northern Ireland entered into a bargain under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, under which it undertook to take care of this fund for itself, but that subsequently to that date, due principally to heavy unemployment in the shipbuilding and linen industries, a very heavy obligation was imposed upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund of Ulster, and in the intervening years frequent requests have been made to the Treasury to re-
consider that decision and make certain grants, or other concessions. Those requests have up to the present always been refused on the ground that there was an understanding in 1920 that Ulster was able to borrow on or mortgage the fund, as we have done in this country, and she must undertake that duty herself, and that with industrial improvement the difficulties of the fund would disappear. The pleas have prevailed with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, although he set out on a great campaign of economy has responded to a plea involving a grant of £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 to Northern Ireland.
It is fair to argue this afternoon that before any country comes to us for what is an out and out grant, that country ought to be in a position to show that everything possible has been done on its part to meet the obligation. Northern Ireland pleads, in the White Paper, that to meet the obligation would be to impose an undue burden upon her taxpayers. Well, there are great burdens upon the taxpayers of this country. If it is to be a matter of comparison between the two countries, they should establish their case and all the circumstances should be taken into account. It is also perfectly fair to argue that Northern Ireland could probably mortgage its Fund or borrow on its resources to an even greater extent without serious difficulty. I am by no means satisfied that that would impose an undue burden upon Ulster.
It is true of the Ulster Unemployment Insurance Fund, as it is true of the Fund in this country, that there are considerable numbers of good industrial insurable lives not within the scheme of Unemployment Insurance. That has been one of the undeniable difficulties of our own Unemployment Insurance experience. Before our Fund was able to stand the terrible test of the grave unemployment, it had not sufficient actuarial or other basis in contributions. That is to say, it had not been running long enough to respond, without borrowing, to a great and sudden burden of that kind. That position would have been very greatly assisted if the basis of our contributions had been widened. While there are undeniable difficulties in bringing more people in, the fact remains that if we view it as an insurance scheme purely,
it can only be on a sound basis when it is comprehensive, and when it fulfils the test of insurance that it takes the good lives with the bad. We have tended to get a great many bad industrial lives from the point of view of employment, and I am rather inclined to think that that is the case in regard to the fund in Northern Ireland also.
Ulster now requests, in effect, an out-and-out grant of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what steps he has taken to find out whether the basis of contributions in Northern Ireland could have been extended. Although linen and shipbuilding are the chief industries of Northern Ireland, there are other industries, and we should like to know whether that point was fully weighed before he finally agreed to the scheme which he now proposes. Had he considered the possibility of an extended basis? The House is entitled to know that, before we vote.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by an extended basis?

Mr. GRAHAM: There are a considerable number of industrial workers who are outside any scheme of unemployment insurance, and I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has investigated that question in Ulster. What numbers are outside the scheme there who could have been brought in to assist the Fund, before they came to us to ask for an out and out grant of £4,000,000 to £5,000,000? These are relevant considerations.
Let the House note the principle of re-insurance. The Government of Northern Ireland are to finance this Fund by paying in one-quarter of the extra sum necessary to achieve a broad parity with this country, and we are to contribute the other three-quarters. That is described as mutual re-insurance, because there is a Clause in the agreement which says that if at any time within the four or five years of the operation of this scheme, there is such an improvement in the position of the Fund in Ulster as to enable Ulster to make a contribution to help us in our difficulties, that contribution will fall to be made. On paper, that looks a kind
of quid pro quo, but I ask any hon. Members who have reviewed the whole of the circumstances to consider this fact, that even if there is far more improvement in the industrial conditions in Ulster than we can reasonably anticipate to-day, the position would ever be such as to enable Ulster to make any contribution to us. I should have thought that it would have been infinitely better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have said that frankly and candidly to the House.
What is the use of talking about mutual re-insurance unless there is mutual re-insurance on conditions which afford the usual tests of insurance? Anyone has only to look at the facts to see that there is no kind of test that we can take in this matter along such lines. It is far better for us to make up our minds at once that we are proposing to give from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 to Ulster. These considerations lead, quite naturally, to the proposal which we have put on the Paper. We suggest that it is perfectly fair to ask Ulster, in existing conditions, to accept this contribution from us in the form of a loan. I do not see any particular difficulty in Ulster accepting a very reasonable request of that kind.
If we put it on the basis of a loan to Ulster at the present time, I imagine that the general effect of a step of that kind would be, perhaps, not to relieve the taxpayers of Northern Ireland to the same extent on the one hand, and on the other to prolong the period of their deficit or their borrowing on the basis of their Unemployment Insurance Fund. A comparison is made between the £3,600,000 which they have already borrowed on the basis of a rather narrow fund, and the £7,900,000 which is the outstanding debt on our fund at the present time. In the terms of the White Paper it is suggested that if Northern Ireland were on a comparable basis in respect to insured population, her obligation would be no more than £183,000. That does not appear to me to be a fair comparison. There was a time, not long ago, when the debt on our Unemployment Insurance Fund, which has been shouldered by the mass of our people, was £16,000,000. The only proper basis of comparison is the existence of that debt over a reasonable
term of years. If that comparison were taken, I am by no means satisfied that the comparison would be so favourable to Ulster as the terms which the White Paper suggests.
We propose to turn this grant into a loan, and we commend the suggestion very strongly to the House. I commend the proposal (1) on the ground of the undeniably heavy obligation on the taxpayers of Great Britain, (2) on the ground of a perfectly fair comparison between the Unemployment Insurance Funds of the two countries, (3) on the ground that if there is improvement in the trade of Ulster the Fund will very speedily recover. On these three grounds and many others I propose the Amendment, and suggest that, without any injustice to the Government of Northern Ireland and still less to the unemployed of Northern Ireland, this out-and-out gift might legitimately be turned into a loan.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. In the event of this Bill becoming law, will hon. Members of this House have the right to raise questions with the Minister of Labour respecting the administration of the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is anything in this Bill which takes away from Northern Ireland complete control over the Fund.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry for some reasons, that we have not had the pleasure of an explanation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the meaning of this Bill. I hope he intends to give us a full and careful reply. It is always a great pleasure to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining any Measure or proposal, and it is never more so than when he is not fully seized of the facts of the proposal which he is endeavouring to explain. Then, he is able to give free play to his imagination, and his romance is able to carry him to heights that if he stuck to precise particulars he would not be able to reach. As far as this particular proposal is concerned, I think there is a good excuse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does not altogether understand what it means, in spite of the benediction which he gave during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, when he said:
I cannot myself attempt to improve upon the detailed and succint account contained in the White Paper. I think it explains the somewhat complicated method of the Bill with a maximum economy of words.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1926; col. 92, Vol. 192.]
Although he referred to the terms of the agreement in that way, anyone who has read it will agree that it is an exceedingly complicated document. Therefore, I think there is a good deal of excuse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does not fully understand the proposal. But it is important for Members of this House, before they put their names to a bill for several million pounds, that they should be fully seized of what this Measure will do. What are the conditions under which we are to pay this money to Northern Ireland? How long may these conditions be reasonably expected to last? Under what conditions, if any, shall we in this country get any money back from Northern Ireland on account of this proposal? Bearing upon the latter question, I put an interrogatory to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Resolution was passing through Committee, and the answer he gave was entirely incorrect and not at all in accordance with the agreement. I asked what we might expect back during the period of the four years' operation of this Bill. He described my question as a complicated conundrum, and proceeded to say:
It seems to me very unlikely that the rate of unemployment will fall so fast that, not only will they be able to pay the cost entirely from their local fund, but, in addition, be able to pay off the three and a-half million pounds of debt which hangs over the fund, and to do all that in the space of the four years covered by this Measure.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1926; col. 149, Vol. 192.]
As a matter of fact, there is no mention in this agreement of paying off the capital deficiency of the fund, and therefore that statement has no foundation at all in the Bill. He went on to say that any hope of this country recovering anything from Northern Ireland for four years was very unlikely. He said:
We may well see the fund in a much better position, but I think it is asking too much of fortune to hope that the entire debt will be liquidated by then. If the hon. Member repeated his question to me in two or three years' time, when things will be better, it would be appreciably
nearer the confines of practical politics.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1926; col. 149, Vol. 192.]
Putting aside this fancy sketch by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what are the terms we are being asked to assent to in this Bill? It is a Bill extending over four years, but most Members of the House will agree it is very unlikely that we shall be able to bring the agreement to an end when the four years expire. It may be reasonably supposed that it is intended to be an agreement which will continue to operate after the four years have passed, and it is, therefore, much more important we should study the precise details rather than think we are going to get off lightly because it is confined to a period of four years. Most Members probably imagine that we are only going to pay this sum to Northern Ireland as long as the Fund in Ulster is in arrears or when there is a deficiency in any particular year. That is entirely incorrect. It is perfectly possible under the terms of this agreement for Great Britain to pay money into the exchequer of Northern Ireland not only when there is no deficiency in any particular year, but when there is no deficiency at all in the Irish Fund. The time may come when the Irish Fund is not only solvent in a particular year but has wiped off the whole of its deficit, yet if this agreement is perpetuated we may be called upon to pay year by year a sum of money into the Exchequer of Northern Ireland. This House, I suggest, has no idea that this is the position under this agreement, but if its terms are carefully read it will be found that it is so. This agreement says nothing about paying so long as there is a deficiency. What it says is that in any particular year the situation of the two Funds will be compared, and whether there be a deficiency or surplus, it shall be the duty of those concerned with the management of the Fund to compare the finances of the two Funds in order to discover what is known as the equalisation payment between the two countries. No question arises as to whether the poorer of the two Funds is in deficiency for the year or has a surplus.
Take some approximate figures. Suppose our unemployment fell to 3 per cent., and in Northern Ireland it fell to 6 per cent. In that case both Funds would be in surplus, but this country will still go
on paying to Northern Ireland three-quarters of the equalisation payment although the Irish Fund may be in surplus for that year; and may be in surplus altogether. This House ought to be seized with this fact, and if it is not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the agreement to which he is asking the House to assent, at least this fact should be taken into account. While we on this side of the House are ready to recognise some claim on the part of Northern Ireland for assistance as long as her Fund is in the serious condition it is at the present time, I think it would be very undesirable for us to consent, in advance, to payment to Northern Ireland in all cases where the Fund in Northern Ireland is in a worse position than our own fund.
The second main question I want to ask is this: Is there any chance of our getting money back? So far as the four years' period is concerned the answers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have ruled out that possibility. He says that it is exceedingly unlikely. But setting aside the four years I should like to ask what chance there is of our getting anything back if the agreement is prolonged over a considerable number of years. The point is this, we are not able to expect anything back from Northern Ireland if we finance our own Fund in the way we do at present. While our Fund is in deficiency we lend money to the Fund from the National Exchequer, and so long as we continue to lend money to the Fund and recoup ourselves when it is in surplus, we shall not under any conceivable circumstances get any money from Northern Ireland in repayment. The only possibility under this agreement of our getting money from Northern Ireland is this—if at a time of deficiency we pay money by way of grant out of the National Exchequer into the Fund to the amount of the equalisation payment.
Let me take a case. Supposing in any particular year our own fund was in a worse position than the Irish Fund, what should we have to do in order to get any money under this agreement? Suppose the equalisation payment was £100,000, then, in order to obtain anything from Northern Ireland, we should have to pay, as a grant, not as a loan, from the National Exchequer to the Insurance Fund a sum of £100,000, and
under this agreement we should then be able to get £75,000 back from the Exchequer of Northern Ireland. In other words, we can only expect to get any money back providing our National Exchequer is prepared to pay as a grant into the fund a sum over and above the amount we are entitled to recover from Northern Ireland. I suggest it is exceedingly unlikely that any Government of this country would take that course. Our own fund is essentially a fund for a long period of time and is therefore solvent. It is designed to be solvent, and I do not think anyone seriously suggests that it will be permanently in deficiency. I think we shall carry out the plan and loan money to our fund when it is in deficiency in the confident expectation that when times are better we shall see it back, and I do not see any Government of this country handing over a grant to our fund under the terms required by this agreement and in that way earning a contribution from Northern Ireland.
The point is this. This agreement goes a great deal further than almost every Member of this House imagines. It involves us in the payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland even when the Irish fund is in no deficiency at all and further, it is practically impossible we shall see any money back from Northern Ireland because we shall only do so, first, if our own fund is less prosperous than the Irish fund, and, secondly, if we change the whole method of financing our fund and make a grant from our Exchequer to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. For these reasons I heartily support the Amendment substituting as it does a form which is really more in accordance with the justice of the situation.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I believe everyone will heartily agree with the observations made by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) when he said that this House should hesitate long, in the present state of our finances, before it undertook any fresh pecuniary obligation. That is a sentiment which appeals to every Member of the House and more especially to Members from Ulster. It does not seem to be realised, and the right hon. Gentleman who one would suppose to be familiar with the financial arrangements between this country and Northern Ireland does
not seem to realise, that we in Ulster pay every penny of taxation that is paid in this country; Income Tax, Super-tax, Death Duties, Customs and Excise.
Every penny of taxation that is levied on the people of Great Britain is levied on the people of Ulster, and no one I think can deny that the taxable capacity of the people of Ulster is less than the taxable capacity of the people of Great Britain. Even the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) will agree that Income Tax at 4s. and 5s. in the £ is more easily borne by the people of the City of London than by the people of the six counties of Ulster, so that while we are bearing exactly the same burdens as the people of this country, yet by reason of our comparative poverty the burdens fall more heavily upon us than upon them. Therefore an appeal for economy and a desire to avoid incurring any fresh obligations is an appeal which comes to the people of Ulster with especial force.
Still, with all our regard for economy and our dislike to incurring any fresh obligations, if there is an obligation which this country ought to undertake, surely we are in a position to undertake it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh said that the people of Ulster entered into a contract in 1920 and that they were now trying to have that contract revised in their favour. If there was a contract at all it was a contract that the people of Ulster in taking over the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the people of Ulster should have no further obligation imposed upon them than the obligation to make contributions which the Government of this country makes and the Government of Ulster makes under the unemployment insurance scheme.
5.0 P.M
Before the Act of 1920 was passed, when it was a Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows a number of White Papers, three in fact, were circulated showing the obligation which Ulster was going to take over and the liability she would have to meet. He cannot point to anything in those White Papers which indicate that the taxpayers of Ulster were to bear any burden of unemployment insurance beyond the contributions specified in the Unemployed Insurance Act, and if there was a contract at all it was that this was to be the limit of the burden on the taxpayers of Ulster. Naturally if that was the position in 1920 it was assumed that
the unemployment insurance fund was actuarially sound, and that it would not be necessary to make any further contributions beyond those specified in the Act. We know now that the result is a little different. Large deficits have been made in this country, and still larger deficits proportionately in Ulster. In this country you have a deficit of £7,500,000. If you had a deficit in this country comparable with the deficit that we have in Ulster, your deficit would be £160,000,000. How is that to be borne? You can hardly bear the burden in this country. In Ulster what means have we of doing so? Almost all the taxation in Ulster is charged by this House. Only about one-fifth of the total revenue raised in Ulster is subject to the Ulster House of Commons; the rest of it is levied here. How can Ulster possibly raise these enormous sums to wipe out the deficit incurred on the Ulster Fund? The truth is that no one has yet proposed that these deficits should be borne otherwise than by the Fund. Let the House not forget that, so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, Ulster has followed step by step the legislation and the practice of this country. Our workmen pay the same contributions as the workmen of this country, our employers pay the same contributions as the employers of this country, and the Ulster Government pays the same contributions as the Government of this country.

Mr. SPENCER: What is the annual contribution for the whole of the insured workmen?

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: The contribution is the same as in this country.

Mr.SPENCER: What is the total amount?

Mr. CHURCHILL: £700,000 or £800,000—something like that.

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: The total number of insured persons, I believe, is 250,000, whereas in this country it is very many more. Owing to the fact that nearly half of our insured people are engaged in the linen trade and the shipbuilding trade, and that these two trades have suffered from exceptional unemployment, the contributions made to the Fund have been wholly insufficient to pay the benefits. The result has been a deficit, and that deficit has been supplied
in Ulster in the same way as the deficit in this country has been supplied, that is, by loans from the Government. Loans have been made to Ulster to the extent of £3,500,000. That being the position, the Fund being insolvent, if nothing is done the people who will suffer will be the workmen who have insured themselves. That is a conclusion from which I suppose even the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh would shrink. It is bad enough when an ordinary private insurance company fails and poor people are unable to get the benefits which they expect, but where you have a compulsory insurance scheme, to which you compel people to subscribe, it would be too gross a fraud to deprive them of the benefits to which they are entitled because you have made a miscalculation as to the amount of contributions which you require for the purpose of the benefits to the trade.
The right hon. Gentleman comes forward with the suggestion, Why should not the Ulster Government include more workpeople under the Unemployment Insurance Fund? Where are they to be found? Our total population is 1,250,000. Of that total 250,000 are insured. Where are the rest to be found? How can we enlarge the number of contributors? Every trade that is insurable in this country is insurable in Ulster. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "We do not like giving this money as a gift. Why not give it as a loan to the fund?" That would only make the fund continue insolvent. Is interest to be paid? That makes it only the worse for the workmen. If you propose to lend money without charging interest, and to lend it in perpetuity, that is a scheme which is scarcely distinguishable from a gift. But if you propose only to lend it at interest you are making an illusory suggestion. There is not any difficulty about the Ulster Government borrowing money, for its credit stands high. If it were merely a question of borrowing money for the fund the Ulster Government could borrow it and hand it to the fund, but the time would come when the workman would be told that the fund was so obviously insolvent they could not have any benefit. That is the inevitable conclusion of the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward.
May I say a few words as to what is contained in the agreement? Although I hesitate to say so, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates how onerous this scheme is on the people of Ulster. We are taking, under this agreement, a very heavy burden. In looking back to 1920 everybody sees now that the Fund ought never to have been separated, that for this purpose you ought to have kept this wide range of insurance covering the whole of Northern Ireland and Britain. In view of what has happened it was a mistake to separate the Fund. If only we were allowed, we would like to amalgamate the Ulster and the British Funds again and to put ourselves into the Central Fund. But the Treasury will not have it. The Treasury are the guardians of the public purse, and, naturally, if they can get off more cheaply they will do so. They reject the scheme of amalgamation of the Funds, and they put forward this proposal. It is a relief to us, or rather a relief to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; it is a relief to the workmen who have subscribed in the hope of getting the benefits promised by the Act. But it is a great burden to the taxpayers of Ulster.
Up to now the Fund has been financed by these loans. Under this agreement the taxpayers of Ulster have to pay down to the Fund the whole of the deficit of over £1,000,000. They have to pay that by way of a gift to their Fund before they can get anything back. It is only when they have actually paid the money into the Fund, not as a loan but as a gift, that they can get back the contributions from this country to the extent of three-quarters of the money that they have paid. The moneys so paid are to be shared, levied rateably upon the whole tax-paying population of both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We ourselves will have to contribute. As a matter of fact, you are going to raise £1 per head of the population. The burden of so doing will fall more heavily on the people of Ulster than it will on the people of Great Britain, because on the whole the people of Ulster are poorer than the people of Great Britain. It is going to put the Ulster Fund, we hope, in a position towards regaining solvency. If this scheme is not carried through it is quite
impossible that the Fund can become solvent. The only way of dealing with the situation would be to cut down the benefits of the workmen; that is to say, the benefits in Northern Ireland of men who have subscribed to the Fund on the faith of the assurance that they were going to get the benefit specified under the Act. They would have to be told that through the action of the Socialist party in the British House of Commons the benefits had to be cut down because the Socialist party would not do the fair thing by Ulster.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: If the principle of making a grant to the Fund is sound for Ulster, it is equally sound for the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am rather inclined to disagree with the two speakers on this side of the House, because I think that the Government have at last seen the error of their ways. The principle of their Bill is sound, but the application of it is too limited. The last speaker referred to the case of Ulster and unemployment in the shipbuilding and linen trades. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking earlier on the Financial Resolutions, stressed that point considerably. He told the House that in Ulster the shipbuilding industry showed 38 per cent. of unemployment on 25th January last. I would remind him that Ulster is not the only place where unemployment in the shipbuilding trade is severe. If 38 per cent. of unemployment justifies a grant to Ulster, what about; 49 per cent., which is the unemployment rate in the shipbuilding industry on the North-East coast of England? Reference was also made to linen. It was stated that in the linen trade there was 29 per cent. of unemployment on 25th January last. What about marine en engineering, another of the staple industries on the North-East coast of England? There you have 35 per cent. of unemployment. Therefore, I contend that what is good for Ulster is equally good for this country, as good for Northern England as for Northern Ireland
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that while the average unemployment in this country was 10 per cent. to 11 per cent., in Ulster it was nearly 20 per cent. I can point to parts of this country, particularly in the North of England and the County of Durham, where the unemployment rate is more than 20 per cent. If
this is a sound policy for Ulster it is equally sound for relieving the Fund in England. What will this partial application mean? It will mean that those districts in the North-East of England and other industrial areas which are so severely hit, will have to pay with their taxes for the grant of £5,000,000 which is to be made to Northern Ireland. I submit that is obviously unfair. If you are going to apply this principle at all, you must apply it wholesale, and not differentiate between one part of the United Kingdom and another. It seems extraordinary that the Government should come forward with this proposal, involving between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, at a time when they are curtailing grants towards unemployment relief in our own country and turning a deaf ear to the appeals of distressed areas, and when we are piling up on our Poor Law rates an excessive burden on account of the reduced payments made in unemployment benefit and, particularly, in extended benefit. We ought to treat the whole Kingdom alike and apply this principle equally, if it is a sound principle. I believe it is sound, because I do not think it is possible, either in Ulster or in England, for an insurance fund started in normal times to meet normal unemployment to face the abnormal amount of unemployment which we have at the present time. Had we built up a reserve fund in the good years it might have been possible, but the present policy seems to be one of taking out a fire insurance policy when the house has begun to burn. I submit that this proposal is faulty in its limited application, and that it is unfair to treat Northern Ireland differently from England and the rest of the Kingdom. If the Government are not willing to apply the principle wholesale, I hope they will then treat all parts of the country alike and grant a loan to Northern Ireland in the same way as they would grant a loan to the Unemployment Insurance Fund of this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: This question was very fully debated on the occasion of the Financial Resolution, and I therefore thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I awaited some, at any rate, of the speeches which were to be made by hon. Members on the Second Reading, before reiterating—in,
I trust, a somewhat different form—the arguments which I ventured to offer to the House in moving the Financial Resolution a fortnight ago. I may indeed be excused if I do repeat to some extent those arguments, because the same objections which were raised in the previous Debate, and which were, as I understood, answered in the previous Debate, have already made their appearance this afternoon. For instance, there is the argument of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who raises the question of necessitous areas. He asks: "What are you going to do about the necessitous areas in England? Ulster is an area where there is exceptional unemployment. You are giving her special and favoured treatment. Why will you not give the same treatment to areas on the East Coast and elsewhere in Great Britain, which are also the centres of exceptional unemployment?" That is his point—that Ulster is receiving privileged treatment, and he asks: "What will you do for the necessitous areas in Great Britain?"
I say those necessitous areas are at the present moment sustained by the whole strength of the Insurance Fund based upon this country, and supported by the credit of the British Exchequer. If Ulster were privileged to share in that fund, and permitted to contribute to it, equally, man for man, £ for £, she would be entirely satisfied, and the only party inclined to cavil would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would undoubtedly find the fund behind which the Exchequer stands burdened to a heavier extent than we are actually burdened at the present time by this arrangement we have made. I agree with the hon. Member that all should be treated alike and no favour shown to Ulster which is not also shown to districts in similar difficulties in Great Britain. Show me in any way, in any feature, that Northern Ireland will derive any advantage which is not at the present time open to similarly oppressed districts in Great Britain, and I will immediately admit that a flaw has been discovered in the reasoning of the Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that in this country, in regard to the Fund, we are relying on the general credit of the country, and that loans are made on the
understanding that they will be repaid to the Exchequer in due course. It is not, however, proposed to do that in Northern Ireland at all. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make a gift—which is an entirely different thing.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That gift is less than the advantage which comes from the borrowing facilities and general strength of the fund which exists in this country, and is a gift which only extends to 75 per cent. of the relative deficiency. Moreover it takes no account of the existing heavy burden of £3,500,000 of debt which has already been accumulated on this fund. But taking the case of an unemployed workman in Belfast and an unemployed workman in Middlesbrough, there is absolutely no advantage or favour shown to the unemployed man in Belfast. On the contrary if there is any differentiation. it is adverse to the position of the workman in Northern Ireland who has to find his fund sustained by—proportionately—much more frequent and heavy contributions from the Government of Northern Ireland. That is only an instance of the way in which arguments have to be repeated in these Debates, and I ask myself what is really the attitude of the Labour party and the official Opposition to this Bill? Here is a Bill, an unwelcome Bill, a Bill which throws a new charge on the Exchequer at a most inconvenient time, but it is introduced by the Government for what purpose? For the sole purpose of making sure that the trade unionists in Northern Ireland, belonging to the same trade unions which exist on the other side of St. George's Channel, shall not be denied the same benefits, having paid the same contributions, in a time of great distress. That is the whole matter, and what is the attitude of the Labour party. What is the attitude of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is an attitude which cannot be better described than by the quotation
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
We are assured nothing would induce, them to do anything to hamper or injure the position of the trade unionist and working man in Northern Ireland, but—and then begin every form of cavilling and every form of argument, designed to prevent these reliefs being received,
without at the same time allowing the Labour party as a whole to be committed to the extremely dangerous, extremely questionable, and if I may say so, extremely undemocratic ground of standing in the way of maintaining a general minimum standard throughout the whole area of Great Britain for which we are responsible. Of course we on this side have no reason to object to the criticisms and opposition which have been levelled against this Bill. They are, of course, all reported and they are all carefully studied by the trade unionists of Belfast and I should have thought that we certainly had no reason to object. But I think it is no use for hon. Gentlemen opposite to use every form of criticism to find fault, to carp and to make every sort of suggestion for retarding this legislation and then when the Financial Resolution comes to be voted on and on the occasion of this Bill, to move an Amendment which would destroy the Bill, while all the time professing their sincere desire to help the working people of Northern Ireland and their great earnestness in that cause.
What is the issue, and what is the method which the right hon. Gentleman's ingenious mind has discovered for opposing the Bill while yet rendering it possible for his party to say, "We never opposed it, we were in favour of it"? The suggestion is that the money should be advanced by loan, and not on this reinsurance arrangement—which I freely admit is a reinsurance arrangement and bound to be much more beneficial to the smaller and poorer organism. Why, the debt which Ulster has already accumulated in the insurance fund is already £3,500,000—that is a debt of £14 per head of the insured population! Our equivalent figure in this country is only 15s. per head. Here is one community of insured persons on whom rests a burden of £14 per head. On the other side of the channel there is a community whose burden is 15s. per head, and the recommendation of the official Opposition, who are not opposed indeed to giving help, is that a loan should be made and not a reinsurance grant, and that those who already have a debt of £14 per head shall, in addition, take the continued and growing deficiency in the years that are to come. It is far from my wish to import
any heat into the discussion, and I am quite sure, as a matter of fact, there is not really very much disagreement between the two parties, but I am only trying to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion per head of the National Debt is taken by Northern Ireland? When he speaks of debt, it has to be taken all round. What portion of the National Debt is accepted by Northern Ireland as their share?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are absolutely involved with us. They are equally a part of the United Kingdom, and pay exactly the same taxes as we do, apart from certain additional taxes which they pay for their own upkeep.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What proportion of the National Debt is paid by Southern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That has been settled by the Treaty arrangement and by arrangements which have received the practically unanimous assent of the House. I stated very clearly last year how that matter was settled, very much to the advantage of Southern Ireland. But that matter is out of order in this particular discussion, and I cannot attempt to pursue it. However, I do suggest that the Amendment proposing that we should proceed by way of loan instead of by way of a reinsurance grant, is a most impracticable and unreasonable manner of treating the problem. It is perfectly clear that with the burden such as it is, and increasing at the rate it is, a loan on these terms would not in any way meet the case. The only alternative to the present process and plan is the amalgamation of the two funds, and there is a great deal to be said for it. The administrative difficulties alone have deterred us from undertaking it. If this plan should fail, that problem will undoubtedly come to the front, and it will be a solution, I have no doubt, more costly to us than this interim proposal which we have made. However this discussion may proceed, do let hon. Members opposite and below the gangway get out of their heads the idea that there is any favour to Ulster in this matter. There is no favour. She
is in a position of exceptional hardship in the matter. She has not had the same support behind her Fund as exists behind the British Fund, although her employers pay the fame and her men pay the same, and they have the same reasonable right to the expectation of benefit.
I wish to answer only one rather technical question of the several ingenious enigmas which the research and industry of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) have produced. He asked: What happens if both the Funds are in surplus, and not in deficiency? Should we in any of those circumstances be called upon to make a payment? If Northern Ireland gets a surplus in any particular year, and if we also get a surplus in the same year, and our surplus per head of insured population is larger than the Irish surplus per head of insured population, then there would be a transfer of funds. But is not that really a very unlikely contingency to occur? When our Insurance Funds begin to show surpluses instead of deficiencies, I presume that the rates of contribution which now press so heavily on employers and employed will be promptly reduced, and that is the form in which the relief will be given. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Road Fund?"] The hon. Gentleman has only just come in, and may I tell him that this is the Ulster Unemployment Insurance Fund?
The hon. Member for West Leicester, whose contributions to the Debate I, without hesitation, admire, because he has evidently mastered thoroughly the intricacies of this subject, also asked: Supposing the British Fund were to become the poorer Fund during the period of the Agreement, could we claim an Exchequer contribution from Northern Ireland without making an equalisation grant ourselves into the British Fund? The answer is, No. In order to obtain a contribution from Northern Ireland, we should have to make an equalisation contribution in cash into our Fund, not by loan, but as a grant. I admit, quite frankly, that it is unlikely, for the sake of the small proportionate sum that is likely to be received—Northern Ireland is only 3 per cent. of the general area of the Fund—that we should derange our general finance by making an equalisation cash payment into the Fund, when at the
same time we should have a very large margin of our £30,000,000 statutory credit guaranteed by the Exchequer, which would be open to the Fund, and I can imagine that our Fund would play up and down, as good and bad years came, within the limits of these statutory borrowing powers. Therefore, I frankly admit that it is in form more than in fact that any contribution from Northern Ireland could be expected during the four and a-half years of the life of the Agreement on this Fund. The Agreement is drawn up in a form which is calculated to place it on a self-respecting basis as regards both parties to it, and one which we consider is fair and just, and I am convinced that, although it is not the best arrangement which could justly be claimed by Northern Ireland, it is the best arrangement which in the circumstances it is possible for the British Exchequer to make.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) told us on the last occasion that two previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had turned this proposal down. Well, the conditions were entirely different. The deficiency on the Ulster Fund had only begun to make its appearance and had not reached anything like these serious dimensions. Neither he himself nor his Conservative predecessor was confronted by the facts with which I have been plainly confronted, namely, that there would either be a bankruptcy of the Fund or it would be necessary to reduce the benefits paid to the working people as a result of the contributions which they have made. Confronted with that alternative, and with the fact that the deficiency has reached a height of £3,500,000, and has been increased in the present year by nearly £2,000,000, I certainly felt it my duty to withdraw, on behalf of the Treasury, any opposition to the decision to which the Government had come, and to come to the support of the Ulster Fund in the manner proposed and explained in this Bill.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If there were any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member at the opening of this Debate as to the reason why neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary to the Treasury introduced the Second Reading of this Bill by any explanation or defence of its provisions, the speech
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed all doubts. I think I never heard the rhetorical resources of the right hon. Gentleman desert him to such a degree as they have done on this occasion. I remember many occasions upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to defend an indefensible proposal, and he has generally succeeded in doing it with a great deal of rhetorical success, but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been as devoid of rhetoric as it has been devoid of argument. The right hon. Gentleman in one part of his speech said that, after all, there did not appear to be very much difference between the two sides of the House upon this question, and that statement followed the statement made immediately before it in which he charged the party on this side with professing an insincere and mocking sympathy with the unemployed in Northern Ireland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile those two statements. As a matter of fact, our sympathy with the unemployed in Northern Ireland is neither mocking nor insincere, and in suggesting, as we do in this Amendment, that the assistance should take the form of a loan rather than of an out and out gift, we are proposing to treat the unemployed workmen in Northern Ireland exactly as their fellow trade unionists and unemployed workmen in Great Britain are treated.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw an analogy between the way in which the temporarily insolvent condition of the Unemployment Fund in this country is treated and the way in which it is treated in Northern Ireland. It can make no difference whatever—this is in reply to a point which the right hon. Gentleman urged at very great length—to the unemployed workmen in Ulster, whether the assistance be given in the form of a loan or in the form of a grant. They will get their unemployment pay just the same, but the people who will benefit will be the Government of Northern Ireland. Their contributions and the contributions of the workmen remain the same, and the amount of benefit will remain the same, but the liability for restoring that fund into a solvent condition will be the responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland, and we are, therefore, by the proposal in this Bill relieving the Government of Northern Ireland from a
liability which the Government of Great Britain has shouldered. Here in this country it is a loan granted by the State, but what is proposed in regard to Northern Ireland is that we shall relieve Northern Ireland from raising a loan for this purpose, and to that extent we are relieving the general ratepayers of the area of Northern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) was rather unfortunate in one confession that he made. He said that the credit of Ulster was very good. Why then, if the credit of Ulster be so good cannot the Government of Ulster borrow this money? The amount of money involved is not large. We are told that, £3,500,000 is the amount of indebtedness at the present time, and even if Ulster had to borrow the whole of that sum, the amount of interest she would have to pay upon that loan would be a comparatively small sum and would not, at any rate, strain unduly the resources of that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are bearing interest now.

Mr. SNOWDEN: But we are going to relieve them from having to bear that interest. My right hon. Friend who introduced our Amendment began with the observation that it was inconsistent on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who two days hence is going to introduce what we understand will be an Economy Bill, and to-day is proposing to make a grant out of the Imperial Exchequer, which, it is admitted, will amount to between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. I am not going to discuss the Economy Bill, but I will make this observation, that I should be very much surprised if that eagerly awaited Measure, if its proposals are carried, is going to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything like the amount which he proposes to hand over, without any condition whatever, to the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Wait and see.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am prepared to wait and see, and I will, as far as it is possible for me to do so, try to restrain my impatience and anxiety for two or three days longer. Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a time like this, when in
some directions he is making great efforts, to effect an economy of a few hundred pounds a year, is generously handing over to his political friends in Ulster a sum which will certainly amount to not less than £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. When we have disposed of the Second Reading of this Bill we shall be asked to grant more than £1,000,000 in addition to £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which has been given during the last four or five years. Before I turn to one or two points of detail in connection with this matter, may I refer to the observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the proposal having been turned down by two of his Conservative predecessors in that office? The right hon. Gentleman cast doubt upon the accuracy of my statement a fortnight ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not cast doubt. I inquired as to the source from which the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information, because he cannot quote from secret papers which fall into the possession of other Governments.

Mr. SNOWDEN: There was no secrecy whatever. According to my information, there was no breach of any official confidence in giving the House of Commons the facts of the case. The House of Commons has a perfect right to know the facts. A proposal similar to this had been turned down by two predecessors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "Ah," says the right hon. Gentleman, "but the circumstances then were not so bad as they are to-day." Well, the demand could not have been put forward with greater emphasis and energy than it was put forward two and three years ago. Even if unemployment in Ulster had been as bad as it is to-day, they made out a case in those days, I am quite sure, as strong as they could, and neither of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors could consider the matter for a single moment.
I said just now I would refer to two or three matters of detail in the Bill. I ask the attention of the House particularly to this point. Speaking a fortnight ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a strong point of the condition laid down, not in the Agreement but in a communication which was addressed by the Government of Northern Ireland to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely,
that if at any time the amount of Great Britain's annual grant exceeds £1,000,000, then the British Treasury should have the right to re-open the whole question, and it would not be regarded by the Government of Northern Ireland as being any breach of the Agreement. That is in a letter which appears in the Appendix to the White Paper, but I would ask the House to note that that condition is not incorporated in the Bill itself. It is not in the Agreement. That is a very vital matter, because should unemployment in Ireland unfortunately get worse, it is by no means improbable that the demand upon the British Exchequer may reach considerably more than £1,000,000. It may be a matter of honour between the British Government and the Government of Northern Ireland to conform to the conditions laid down in the Memorandum, but I think it is most important that it should receive Statutory recognition, and it ought to have been incorporated in the Agreement itself.
We are giving this money to Northern Ireland without any real control whatever. An hon. Friend of mine put a question to the Speaker in the course of the Debate this afternoon, as to whether the British House of Commons would be entitled to ask any questions in regard to the administration of the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland, and Mr. Speaker said he understood that the making of this grant would not in any way alter the procedure hitherto adopted, and, therefore, we are justified, from that statement of Mr. Speaker, in believing that no Member of the House of Commons will be entitled to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the way in which this fund or this grant is being administered. The main argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of this Bill, both this afternoon and on previous occasions, has been that the burden of unemployment in Ulster was greater than the burden of unemployment in this country, but I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the amount contributed in Great Britain to the Unemployment Insurance Fund is only a comparatively small part of the cost of unemployment to the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, and I would like to ask what Northern Ireland has done comparable with the sum which has been
spent in this country in supplementing unemployment insurance—a sum which, in one year, I believe, amounted to between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000. I should like to know what the Government of Northern Ireland have spent in regard to unemployment relief schemes? So far as my recollection goes they have done nothing, or practically nothing, in this respect, and, therefore, they have been saving considerably on means and methods of expenditure for the relief of the unemployed, compared with what has been done in this country.
Those are the two or three points of detail arising out of this Bill about which I wanted to say a word or two. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said that the Government of Northern Ireland might, perhaps, have considerably increased the income of the Insurance Fund by extending the area of insurance, and the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) dealt with this point. So far as I can make out from what he said, about one person in five is insured for unemployment in Northern Ireland, whereas the number in this country is not quite, but nearly one in three. Of course, I am quite prepared to admit that that difference may be, to some extent, accounted for by the fact—I do not know, but this may be the explanation—that in this country a larger proportion of our population is employed in industrial occupations than is the case in Northern Ireland.

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: A large number of our population are peasant farmers, to whom the unemployment insurance scheme is wholly inapplicable.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That confirms the suggestion by way of explanation I made just now. I have only this further observation to make. The same hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what he described as the unfortunate division of the Fund when the Government of Ireland Act came into operation six years ago, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to that to—day. I admit that that was a mistake, and it may be too late now to remedy the mistake that was made at that time—a mistake for which the right hon. Gentleman himself must take a very large measure of responsibility. I am afraid it is now too late to remedy the mistake, and therefore, if we
are going to meet the Government of Northern Ireland in their present distressed condition, that is not the way we can afford them any immediate relief. Therefore, the choice is between the proposal embodied in this Bill and the proposal which is adumbrated in the Amendment now before the House. I have been amazed at the lack of fertility on the part of the Treasury Bench. It is a charge that can rarely be made against the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not heard a single argument put forward from the Treasury Bench in defence of the method that they propose to adopt as being better than the method that we propose. They have never attempted to answer the point that we have made, that you are creating by this Bill an invidious distinction between the methods of dealing with the Unemployment Fund in the two countries.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): They have met that assertion by denial.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Denial is the only argument which the Treasury Bench use, Denial, however, is not an argument, and it is not proof. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to speak.

Mr. McNEILL: No.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is not going to speak. He is well advised, because he could only succeed in adding another example of the weakness of his case and the incapacity of the Treasury Bench.

Mr. D. REID: I only wish to deal with one or two points made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing has been done to justify the acceptance of this Bill but I should have thought that was answered by his own speech. He said the division of this Fund was a mistake. I think when he has admitted that, he has admitted everything, and has knocked the bottom out of his own case. May I remind the House exactly what the historical position is with regard to this Fund? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the bulk of the taxation levied in Northern Ireland is collected by the Imperial Exchequer. He knows that when the Northern Ireland Government set up the various services allotted to Northern Ireland, funds were trans-
ferred to allow the services to be financed. He knows also that unemployment insurance up to almost the time when the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920, was a compartively small service, and that there were no data in existence to enable an estimate to be made of what would be required to finance the very much extended scheme that was contained in the Insurance Act of 1920. There was not any data available. No reliable estimate could be got when the funds were transferred.
6.0 P.M
The Colwyn Committee, which was set up to advise or to determine what the financial arrangements should be between Northern Ireland and the Imperial Treasury had certain terms of reference, and by these the Insurance Fund was excluded. I think I am right in saying that the Colwyn Committee thought it was impossible to determine what the proper relations were until the Estimate to which I have referred was made. Therefore, the question is not an open question. It is not, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, a case of reopening a bargain. There never was a bargain. There should have been an amount granted to Northern Ireland at the time which would have enabled the fund to be actuarially sound. That was not done. What the Government of Northern Ireland has done is to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the situation—a situation made by this House. My contention is that it is not a fair way of dealing with the question if it leaves a deficit on Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer under this scheme is to provide three-quarters of the money. We say that the reasonable thing is to amalgamate the funds. The people of Northern Ireland—workmen and employers—pay the same contributions. The Northern Ireland Exchequer pay the same contribution. These correspond to the payments by the people of this country. The people of Northern Ireland pay the same taxes as the people of this country. Is it suggested that the only effect of the loan can be that the taxpayers in Northern Ireland can pay interest on it?
What is the position in Northern Ireland going to be if the result of legislation thrown upon the people by the Act of 1 20 is to make their financial position
different and their taxes heavier than Great Britain? That is not a reasonable situation. We are not asking for a sum of money to be raised in Great Britain. We are only asking for the proper allocation of the money raised by the Treasury in Northern Ireland. We ask to be given sufficient money to provide for the same social services as in this country, for we carry the same amount of burdens as is carried in this country.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Hon. Members on this side of the House, I think, do not fail to understand the suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We understand what he meant was that a combination of orange and green influence would be put into practically every constituency and in every part of the country to work against any Labour candidate who should attempt to stop the progress of this Measure. But politics change very rapidly. I remember when the right hon. Gentleman himself visited Northern Ireland not many years ago. He had a different reception from his last visit. It may be unkind on the part of friends of the Labour party to tell the country that this is a long price to pay for an Irish hat, new ribbons, a shillelagh, and an Irish cutty pipe!
I desire to congratulate the people of Northern Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland, because they are going to do what we of the Labour party have failed to get done here. We believe that unemployment ought to be a national charge. I contended when the Financial Resolution was being discussed, that the position in Ireland was totally different from the position in either Scotland or England. You have been using your unemployment funds to pay extended benefits to unemployed persons. In this country—in England, or in Scotland at least—you had to pass special legislation to allow the parish councils to pay able—bodied relief to unemployed persons. I think it rather hard, but I feel inclined to support the Bill. I feel inclined to support it because of the audacity of the Measure. It is Irish. No one but an Irishman would have thought of it. We believe in making unemployment a national question.
What are the facts? In Northern Ireland the only relief you give is paid to blind persons, and when you are paying
that relief in Northern Ireland you put the names of the recipients on a bill and post it up in a public place. In Scotland we have had our payments increased because of the action of this Government. The parish councils are up by 200 per cent. since the Government came into office. In 1924 the Labour Government made extended unemployment benefit a statutory thing. We made it that unemployed persons were to have extended benefit. This Government decided to wipe that out, and have done it, and have thrown it upon the parish councils in Scotland. In my particular parish the payments have gone up from £1,600 per week to £4,380 per week. Yet you are handing over there millions to Northern Ireland for unemployment benefit! I do not mind them getting it. But I think the people of this country ought to know the circumstances. There is perfect agreement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. Of course there is. One can easily understand it, because the Irish Government is going to get what we in the Labour movement believe in, and that is that unemployment should be a national charge. The Government itself—a reactionary Government, Tory of the Tories, for nothing could be more Tory than the Northern Ireland Parliament—are not going to hurt their friends by imposing taxes. They are going to make the British taxpayer pay for it. If the Members of this House understood it; if the people outside understood it, then I am just afraid that this Government would hesitate before they gave this money.

Mr. WALLHEAD: So far as we on these benches are concerned, the case has not been met by any speaker on the opposite side. A while ago I raised the question of necessitous areas in this country, and said, for the purpose of comparison, that Northern Ireland was a necessitous area from the point of view of unemployment. In this country we have for a long time been in favour of the equalisation of the rates, of the equalisation of the burden of poverty. There are areas in this country where the burden of poverty carried is exceedingly low, but there are other areas where the burden is exceedingly high. In my own constituency the rates are 26s. in the £. There is at present a rise in these because of the increased burden of
the Poor Law for the relief of able-bodied persons who are denied extended unemployment benefit. That is a point that we in connection with this question wish to be considered.
In Northern Ireland, I understand, there is no relief whatever given to able-bodied persons. They have no more Poor Law burden or rates than are carried by the necessitous areas in this country. There are places like those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), the North-east coast; there are areas like that I represent in South Wales; there are vast areas in Monmouthshire, where there are thousands and thousands of men unemployed who have been refused extended benefit, and thrown upon the Poor Law. Many of these places have low rate-able values, and the values are decreasing because of unemployment, and because of the pits having closed down. In the name of humanity the public authorities cannot allow these men and women to starve. Yet when we come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for relief for our necessitous areas not one single penny can we get, or even a promise, and a further injustice is done to the employed people by denying them Poor Law relief. In a little while the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bring forward his Economy Bill. Yet you are advancing this £5,000,000 to Northern Ireland. It is a free gift, which will cost the taxpayers of this country millions a year. The Chancellor will endeavour to save a few paltry hundreds at the expense of the poor in this country. In violent contradiction to his treatment of Conservative Northern Ireland, you get his treatment of some of the working—class districts of our own country.
There are working class districts in the East End of London. There are districts like Merthyr, the Rhondda Valley, Middlesbrough, and places of that description that need help, and so we protest in the way we do. We want equalisation. We want fair play for all. We are not going to see additional burdens added to our own burdened ratepayers and taxpayers here for the purpose of giving this to Northern Ireland, and so carry the burden which they themselves
ought to shoulder. Moreover, may I point out that it has been admitted that the average of unemployment in Northern Ireland has been less intense in character than it has been here. Exceptional circumstances have arisen in Northern Ireland, and this has made the immediate percentage higher than in our own country. On the average, however, it is not higher. It is so in specific trades and specific areas, but it is less high generally than in some of our districts, and less high, in my opinion, or not so high, as in Middlesbrough, and it is not so high as in many areas in South Wales, where the average of unemployment is higher than the average in Northern Ireland.
It cannot be denied that in spite of a comparatively high average of unemployment now in Northern Ireland, the time will come when the average will be considerably lower. If, then, the normal standard is likely to be restored, there is no reason why a loan should not be sufficient for Northern Ireland from its own unemployment fund to carry it over the present time. If trade is going to revive, Northern Ireland will get its share. If it is not going to revive, then we shall all go down into the same abyss. If the Government believe that trade will revive, then the loan can be repaid later when trade has revived. If, on the contrary, the Government believe that trade will not revive, then, in God's name, let them prepare a plan for dealing with unemployment on a really national basis: let them not go forward with these arrangements. Those are the reasons why we protest against this special treatment, and in spite of all that is said about the orange and the green and the effect it may have upon the Belfast Labour party, I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against this proposal. I believe it will in no sense harm the unemployed men, but may make the Government of Northern Ireland do its duty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 271,Noes, 124.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[6.16 p.m.]


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edwards, John H.(Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, G.(Wood Green)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Elveden, Viscount
Looker, Herbert William


Albery, Irving James
England, Colonel A.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Apsley, Lord
Fairfax, Captain J.G.
MacIntyre, Ian


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fermoy, Lord
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Astor, Viscountess
Fielden, E.B.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Atholl, Duchess of
Finburgh, S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.


Barclay-Harvey, C.M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meller, R.J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Fraser, Captain Ian
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bennett, A. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gates, Percy.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gee, Captain R.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R.G.C.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Grant, J. A.
Neville, R. J.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brass, Captain W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gretton, Colonel John
Nuttall, Ellis


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W.D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, C.
Philipson, Mabel


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harland, A.
Pielou, D. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, D. D.(County Down)


Butt, sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henn, Sir Sydney H
Rice, Sir Frederick


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cassels, J. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hilton, Cecil
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, Capt. A.U.M. (Hackney N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfst)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley,Col.Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Kidd, J.(Linlithgow)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E.(Dudley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)




Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Womersley, W. J.


Tinne, J. A.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Wood, B. C.(Somerset, Bridgwater)


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wragg, Herbert


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Withers, John James



Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Hennessy and Major Cope.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H.(Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees.-(Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Cowan D.M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William 
Thorne, W.(West Ham Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Abreavon)
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, colonel Harry
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, c.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C.(Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. c. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T.E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen c.


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrence, F.W.
Williams, David(Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J.H.(Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T.(York, Don valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A.A
Wilson, R.J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W.C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G.H.(Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.



Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question"

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 120.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[6.26 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Benn, Sir A. S, (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bennett, A. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Buckingham, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Betterton, Henry B.
Bullock, Captain M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bird, E.R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burman, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Blundell, F. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Apsley, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Astor, Maj. H n. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Caine, Gordon Hall


Astor, Viscountess
Brass, Captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cassels, J. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bridgeman, Rt. William Clive
Cautley, Sir Henry S


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Balniel, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Chapman, Sir S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Preston, William


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hills, Major John Waller
Radford, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone) 
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cooper, A. Duff
Holland, Sir Arthur
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major William
Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T.(Lancs., Stretford)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brice, Major E. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Huntingfield, Lord
Rye, F. G.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kidd, J.(Linlithgow) 
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Edmondson, Major A. J
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Elveden, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


England, Colonel A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Looker, Herbert William 
Storry-Deans, R.


Fermoy, Lord
Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harman 
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fielden, E. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Finburgh, S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) 
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacIntyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John 
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Margesson, Captain D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Gee, Captain R.
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Wells, S. R.


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquey)


Grant, J. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) 
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Neville, R. J.
withers, John James


Harland, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) 
Wolmer, Viscount


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)
Womersley, W. J.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert 
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Harvey, G.(Lambeth, Kennington)
Oakley, T.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, colonel E.K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hawke, John Anthony
Philipson, Mabel
Wragg, Herbert


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Philipson, Mabel
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pielou, D.P.



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Broad, F. A.
Clowes, S.


Ammon, Charles George 
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Baker, Walter
Bromley, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Barnes, A.
Buchanan, G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barr, J.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Compton, Joseph




Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cove, W.G.
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Smith, H. B. Lees.- (Keighley)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R. Elland)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wright, W.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Churchill.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT-IN-AID.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for a Grant—in—Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is very little new to say upon this topic. We have had these debates for three years running in the House, and most of the arguments by this time from both sides must have been worn threadbare. Neither is there any novelty in the Vote which has been put from the Chair. On the occasion of the Irish Settlement last
July I explained most clearly to Parliament that we proposed to make a further winding up grant of £1,200,000 to Northern Ireland in respect of their special police, and in addition I propose to wipe out the book entries amounting to £700,000 which figure against them for the arms and equipment which we supplied to Northern Ireland. It is true that the sale of surplus arms will produce a small amount. So far as the debt is concerned I told the House that we would provide the final £1,200,000 asked for in this Vote. Last year we provided £1,250,000, and we provided a larger sum the year before. Altogether we have provided over £5,000,000 since the passing of the 1920 Act for this purpose.
The Committee is well aware of the reasons which have justified that expenditure. The work which has been achieved in Northern Ireland of restoring order is a truly admirable work, and when you consider what the position of Belfast was in 1921 and 1922, with scores of murders taking place, horrible tragedies being enacted, and whole streets being swept by bullets by night and day, and large masses of troops in occupation of different parts of the city; when you consider the condition of things on the border and the raids made in Southern Ireland into Ulster territory, and the
repeated affrays of a sanguinary character which took place on the border, and the general state of anxiety, unrest, and suspense in which the whole population of Northern Ireland had been dwelling; when one considers all this it is indeed a subject of immense self-congratulation and congratulation to those responsible, that we should now have a thoroughly well-ordered community, with practically complete immunity from crimes of violence. So much is this so that one of the Judges at the Assizes the other day noted that there were no homicides at all in the bill presented to him. When you get a condition of affairs in which both Protestants and Catholics are going about their business freely and in a peaceful manner in the midst of a city where only four years ago most shocking conditions were rife, then I say this expenditure which we have incurred is as well justified as any money which was ever spent by the British Treasury.
There are those who consider that if we had refused all such grants we should have forced the Government of Ulster greatly to curtail the Ulster police force and they contend that that would have been attended by an improvement in public order. I disagree with that view. The A Specials, of whom there were over 8,000, were a highly disciplined force and they were in the permanent service. The B Specials not only gave a greater sense of security to the population of Northern Ireland as a whole, but they also provided an organised and disciplined structure within which a certain number of elements which might have proved unruly or violent found a regular and disciplined expression. The story has been often told, but this proposal concludes the long series of payments which every year have been paid without intermission since the passing of the 1920 Act.
The Government of Northern Ireland, faced with the discontinuance of any assistance of this kind, did not hesitate to take prompt and drastic action in the reduction of their police force. The B Specials have been disbanded, only a mere skeleton organisation being retained at the expense of Northern Ireland. The A Specials have been completely disbanded, and the Committee will remember a very ugly-looking mutiny or state of insubordination
occurred at the moment of disbandment amongst these men, who felt that they were being much too abruptly dismissed, but the Northern Government, under the extreme financial pressure in which they found themselves, acted with great firmness and the men returned to a proper sense of their duty, and the difficulty was completely surmounted without at any time assuming proportions which might have caused embarrassment to the Imperial Government. Therefore, we are closing a story which, although it has been attended by difficulties, has yet achieved unquestionable success. There is peace and order; the extra police have been disbanded; and this is the final payment to be made by the Imperial Parliament to help in the achievement of this desirable end, and to help in the consummation of a policy which has led Ireland through immense changes, for which changes the Imperial Parliament has assumed and must for ever bear the main responsibility.
I do hope that this Vote will not be made yet another occasion for the outpouring of hatred against the Ulster Government and against the people of Northern Ireland. They have passed through most tragic experiences, and they are now emerging into better and calmer times. I should have been confronted with a demand for £2,500,000 this year in support of the Government of Northern Ireland and its police forces, but for the fact that the boundary question has been settled. The blessed and auspicious series of events which enabled that question, hitherto insoluble, to be terminated last July, with the assent of all parties concerned, enabled an immediate reduction of more than one-half to be made in the demands which were to have been pressed upon the British Exchequer, and I agreed, as part of the arrangements which were made in that matter, to pay this final sum of £1,200,000, and to forego the charges for arms and equipment. I ask the Committee to assent to this Vote. It is a sum of money which, however we may regret the expenditure, has been, in my opinion, an essential contribution to a policy which, however it may have been viewed by this or that party at the time, will, I am sure, in future at any rate, come to be regarded as of general and lasting advantage to the British Empire.

Mr SNOWDEN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100
Every Member of the Committee will share the feeling of pleasure expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that things have now assumed a more tranquil condition in Northern Ireland, but I fall to appreciate the relation that there is between that and the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now submitting to the Committee. The right hon Gentleman began by saying that there was no novelty in the proposal that he was about to submit, and with that statement, at any rate, I can heartily agree; there never is any novelty in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer putting before the House of Commons proposals for extravagant expenditure. He also made the preliminary observation that this matter had been debated full yon previous occasions, and that there was little now to be said. That, I suppose, is the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said little or nothing in defence of the proposal. Up to a few minutes ago, the House of Commons has been devoting its attention, since the end of Questions, to the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes to make a clear gift of about £500,000,000—
—

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, £5,000,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The explanation of that slip is quite simple. I am so accustomed to the extravagance of the right hon. Gentleman that I hardly realised for the moment that he was making such a modest proposal as that. Now, having passed the Second Reading of that Bill, we are to give another £1,200,000 to the same Government of Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to assume that the grants for this purpose which have been made in recent years had not merely been necessary, but had been made with the enthusiastic approval of the British Exchequer. I dealt with this matter a year ago, and I shall say no more about it now than this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well that, whatever might have been the condition of Northern Ireland three years ago, there was at that time no intention on the part of his predecessors in office to continue this grant for another year. That was made quite clear to the Government of Northern Ireland three years ago by the present Prime Minister. We have given for this purpose since 1920, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated, a sum of about £6,500,000. In 1923, the grant for this purpose was £2,700,000; the next year it was £1,500,000; last year it was £1,250,000, and this year it is to be £1,200,000—that is to say, just over £6,500,000 altogether which they have had in four years.
This grant has been made ostensibly for the support of the Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland. That force, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, has consisted, so far as the Treasury can give information about it, of between 30,000 and 40,000 men. About 2,500 of these, I understand, are permanent officers or constables in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Then there was a second class, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts at about 8,000, who, I believe, were allowed to carry arms which they kept in their own possession. Then there was the third and largest class, who, although they carried arms, did not keep those arms in their own possession; they were deposited in barracks. They were, of course, not fully occupied in the discharge of their duties connected with the Special Constabulary, and the charge has been made, and it has never been satisfactorily disposed of, that this Grant for Special Constabulary in Ulster has in reality been a grant for assistance in maintaining these untrained men. In this last class there will have been nearly 30,000 men, who have been able, presumably, to follow their ordinary occupations, and who in respect of these occasional duties, in their leisure time presumably, have been receiving on the average something like 14s. or 15s. a week.
It was, of course, vehemently denied from the Ulster benches a year ago that there was any truth in that statement, but we had, inferentially, remarkable confirmation of it from the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles), who spoke a few days ago during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution in connection with the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading. I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place to-day; there must be something very pressing indeed to keep him in Belfast when the British House of Commons is concerned with the granting of money for the assistance of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said
on that occasion that, when the boundary settlement was announced, the Ulster Government at once began to disband these Special Constabulary forces. The interpretation naturally to be put upon that was that harmonious relations were likely now to be maintained between the two parts of Ireland, so that this special police force was no longer necessary. But there is another equally possible explanation.
It was just about that time that the Bill which we have been discussing this afternoon was assuming shape, and definite pledges had been made by the British Treasury to the Government of Northern Ireland to give the assistance proposed in that Bill. That Bill proposes to give to the Government of Ireland this year nearly £750,000. They had been promised a year ago, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, this proposed sum of £1,200,000, and let the Committee note this, that, at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that £1,200,000 a year ago, there was little prospect, and there certainly was no assurance, that the boundary question would be settled. There was no more likelihood then than there was 12 months before that the Government of Northern Ireland would be able to disband the Special Constabulary because of a more tranquil condition of things in Ulster.
On the contrary, I do not think it will be disputed if I say that there was little expectation that the Boundary Commission would settle that question satisfactorily, and Ulster was looking forward to the possibility of very serious trouble in the autumn of last year. There was, therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that arrangement with Sir James Craig a little more than a year ago, no likelihood that the Government of Northern Ireland would be able to disband the Special Constabulary at any time during the current financial year. What happened? As soon as the boundary question was settled, the Government of Northern Ireland disbanded that force, but at the same time they had got that guarantee of £650,000—I think that is the exact figure—which is to be given to them to help their Unemployment Fund during the financial year. How are the Government of Northern Ireland going to stand? The
money that we are proposing to vote them to-night is for the whole year, but their expenditure for the Special Constabulary continued, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast to say, only up to September. Therefore—

7.0 P.M

Mr. CHURCHILL: When does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any undertaking was given to pay this £1,200,000?The amount for last year was £1,250,000,that is to say, for the year ending on the31st March, 1925.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I suggest, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he gave the undertaking a year ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a year ago; it was in the month of July.

Mr. SNOWDEN: At the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement the boundary question had not been settled; therefore, there could be no such expectation on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say the figure at that time. When the boundary question was settled in July, I then, after going into the whole matter, told him I would go into the question of expense in 12 months' time.

Mr. SNOWDEN: What are we to understand?

Mr. CHURCHILL: December it was; not July.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Really what are we to understand? The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, undoubtedly gave the impression that he made that statement in regard to a final grant about a year ago. Then he rises to say he made it in July. Now the hon. Member for Derry (Sir M.Macnaghten) goes on to the bench behind and tells him it was in December. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appear to have a clear recollection of what took place between himself and Sir James Craig. He tells us it was in July. Now the hon. Member says it was in December. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that at the time he made the arrangement with Sir James Craig he did not know what was going to happen in connection with the Boundary Commission. I wonder if at that time
Sir James Craig gave him an undertaking that after the boundary question had been settled the Special Constabulary would be disbanded? The point arising out of ail I am making now is this, that last year £1,250,000 was considered to be sufficient for the maintenance of the Special Constabulary. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking us to make a grant of £1,200,000 which is practically the same sum, although, on his own admission, the Special Constabulary now is only going to be in existence for about half of the current financial year. Therefore, it simply amounts to this that proportionately we are giving Northern Ireland for the maintenance of the constabulary twice as much as they got in the previous year. In addition to that, we are giving nearly three-quarters of a million to assist unemployment. Therefore, the contribution practically amounts to nearly £3,000,000. If the Special Constabulary had not been disbanded, then we should have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming here this evening and asking us to make a grant, not of £1,200,000, but of £2,500,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman giving way to me. I do not want a misunderstanding on the facts, because the Committee is entitled to know the facts. No settlement was made of any figure to be paid by this country in respect of the Irish Constabulary in Northern Ireland until the Boundary Question was settled. I was quite in error in mentioning July; I had in my mind that that was the time of the settlement. It was, of course, December. I said that in perfectly good faith, and I am sure the Committee will recognise it. The fact is that it was n December that the settlement of the Boundary Question was made, and that was the first time I arranged with Sir James Craig about this figure of £1,200,000. He immediately undertook to disband the constabulary.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Here is a further contradiction. The right hon. Gentleman says this was in December, but the hon. Member for Belfast told us that they decided to disband the constabulary in September, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that. At any rate, taking his corrected statement, and taking it that the agreement with Sir
James Craig was made in December, may I ask this. When were the Special Constabulary disbanded?

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: One week before Christmas. After the agreement with the Free State had been made with regard to the boundary, it was then, and not till then, that the Special Constabulary began to disband.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That means that there has been only nine months in the financial year during which the Government of Northern Ireland had the obligation of maintaining the constabulary.

Mr. D. REID: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SNOWDEN: This is simply becoming a dialogue by which the Ulster-men conduct debates.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not merely the Ulstermen.

Mr. SNOWDEN: What vested interest had they in their occupation as a special constabulary? Maybe it was not an occupation at all. This was a spare-time occupation in the case of 30,000 of them of "C" class.

Mr. REID: The right hon. Member's facts are hopelessly wrong.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am rather glad to have an admission. It confirms the statement I made 12 months ago. If these were all full-time men it means this—

Mr. REID: They were not.

Mr. SNOWDEN: A moment ago they were. Last December this arrangement was come to. Three-quarters of the year had gone. There is one quarter therefore during which the Special Constabulary were either disbanded or in the process of being disbanded. Therefore, there cannot possibly have been the same expenditure in the current financial year as there was 12 months ago, and yet the grant is practically the same. In addition to that, we have this gift that we are going to give to Northern Ireland under the Bill we have been discussing this afternoon which amounts to something like £750,000 this year and ultimately between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. It is no wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer had such a hearty welcome in Belfast. I would not for a single moment suggest that the
right hon. Gentleman went to Belfast in order that he might get the satisfaction of receiving the plaudits and approbation of the people of Belfast for the way in which he has paid money out of the British Exchequer to the assistance of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You would not make such an insinuation.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would not. The right hon. Gentleman likes the dramatic and the spectacular. Hon. Members are always talking about economy. We are going to have an Economy Bill in a day or two. I dare say it will reduce the number of charwomen in some of the Government offices, and save £200 or £300 a year. That will be put against some indefensible extravagance. This Vote is the acid test of the sincerity of the professions of hon. Members opposite about economy. If hon. Members opposite support this Vote, then they are exposing all that talk about economy as being sheer hypocrisy. Any Member opposite who goes into the Lobby in support of this Motion will have colossal audacity if he ever dares to rise in his place in this House in the future and say a single word about the need for national economy.

Mr. D. REID: I have heard before this suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this claim for money for the support of the Special Constabulary was in effect for the relief of unemployment. I tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning, but I am afraid I failed. The right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the Bill we were discussing this afternoon, made a statement which gave away his whole case. I think in this speech, too, he has given away his whole case. He said it was expected that the Boundary Commission would not settle the question of the boundary, and that very serious trouble was to be expected. I think I can put it that in that state of affairs there is ample justification for the retention of the Special Constabulary. I think, further, there is ample support for the contention that payment ought to come from the Imperial Exchequer. The Northern Government was set up by this House. It was never contemplated that there
would be a state of warfare, but as soon as that Government was set up attacks were made on it. There were raids over the border, and there were enemies within their own walls. A late colleague of mine said to me one day in the Lobby that unless something was definitely done to maintain the existing condition it would be impossible for the Ulster Government to continue. On that footing, these specials were set up. There is now peace and quietness, which is to a large extent the result of the work of these specials. The Government of Ulster would probably not be in existence at this moment had it not been for the help given by the setting up of this Special Constabulary.
It would be quite impossible for the Ulster Government to start its various services and its Departments and at the same time to pay this totally unexpected bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite himself admitted that this was a necessary expenditure by saying it was not expected that the Report of the Boundary Commission would settle the question, and that serious trouble was expected. That is a good reason out of his own mouth. The circumstances in which the Ulster Government was set up are a good and sound reason why this should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer. The specials have done their work. If the constabulary had not been set up, there was a very considerable chance that this Government would have been involved in very much larger expenditure. It would probably have been necessary to use troops, and the cost of putting down the disturbances would have been very much greater.

Mr. J. JONES: One of the biggest crimes that an Irishman can commit evidently, judging by this Debate, is to be born south of the Boyne. Irishmen not from the northern side of the border used to be charged in the old days with making perpetual demands upon the British Exchequer, and on those occasions the men from the North and the men from the South used to join in holy matrimony asking for more money from the British taxpayer. Unemployment is looked upon in one part of the United Kingdom as a national charge. We who happen to live in other parts of the United Kingdom find that it is anything but a national charge. The North of Ireland
has got into debt to the extent of £3,500,000 in consequence of the administration of the Unemployment Act. I come from a place with not half the population and certainly not half as rich. We have had to borrow £2,000,000 to meet our responsibilities under that Act of Parliament. We can get no assistance. We have to pay a heavy rate of interest, amounting to 6 per cent., on the £2,000,000 we have borrowed, and we are now informed that we shall have to be very good boys or we shall not even get the chance of borrowing.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This question does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. JONES: Thank you, Sir. I thought it did not, but I did not get a chance of saying anything about it before. The force we are talking about was organised for a particular purpose. Trouble was supposed to be likely to ensue if the border question was not settled by the Boundary Commission, and this force was organised on special lines. A religious bar was put up against the men who joined it, or did not join it. I will ask hon. Members opposite to tell me how many Catholics, or men who were known to have Nationalist sympathies, were allowed to joint the force. They were deliberately selected and elected to do a certain job. I visited Northern Ireland during the time these men had control, and I saw some of their handiwork in the houses occupied by Catholic people. This is not merely a question of maintaining law and order. It is a question of finding money from the National Exchequer to subsidise religious bigotry. These men, during a certain period, were to carry out the wishes of the Orangemen who form the majority in the North of Ireland, and now Catholics will have to pay taxes to compensate the men who outraged them during the period they had the power to do so.
I protest, not from the standpoint of the amount of money it cost, but from the standpoint of the principle on which it was based, and the Catholic people of Ireland, and England too, now being called upon to find the money to pay the expenses of the people who cracked their skulls in the time of trouble in Ireland. You talk about the raids over the border. What about the raids inside, the houses that were knocked down, the people
whose lives were made a misery to them, and the men who could not go into the ship yards because they were known to be Nationalists and Catholics? Are they going to get compensation? No. What they got was nuts and bolts thrown at them. There is no compensation for the trade unionist Roman Catholics who were knocked out of the shipyards by the Ulster Black and Tans, for that is all they were. If you can subsidise Unemployment Insurance in the North of Ireland, what is the objection to subsidising it in the South of England? In our own district we are paying£12,000—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member before that that question does not arise.

Mr. JONES: I was only making a comparison. Part of this money, it is alleged, will go to help those men who have been disbanded from this Ulster Constabulary to help them over their time of stress in the form of unemployment benefit, and the reason they are getting it is that they created trouble. They were being disbanded and the Government of Northern Ireland, having an eye on the British Exchequer, said "We will make you a bonus grant, but we will not pay it." It is not a bonus grant to the people who were disbanded. It is a "skin-them-and-bone-them" grant. I am not a financier. All I know about finance is the lack of it. We are opposed to this kind of thing. If you are going to subsidise unemployment, do it all round. If you are going to subsidise this kind of service, we want to know why it has not been subsidised in the South of Ireland as in the North. They had the same trouble and the same difficulty with the minority of their people as you did with yours, but they have not asked for this assistance, and they have not got it. The South of Ireland has shouldered its own burdens, and we think the North of Ireland ought to do the same.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I rise to ask a question in regard to this Unclassified Service. At the bottom of page 55 the following appears:
The expenditure out of this Grant—in—Aid will not be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General"—
That may be explained, but it goes on as follows:
nor will any balance of the sums issued remaining unexpended at the close of the financial year be liable to surrender.
Surely this is unbusinesslike. I cannot imagine, even in a Supplementary Estimate, a paragraph of this sort appearing where we are giving money and giving up the balance without any audit and without any surrender whether the amount is spent or not.

Mr. McNEILL: I am surprised that my hon. Friend of all people should put such a question to me, because this is the invariable practice whenever there are Grants-in-Aid, and this paragraph appears over and over again.

Sir F. WISE: Why is it a Grant-in-Aid?

Mr. McNEILL: That is not the question. The question my hon. Friend put to me was a totally different one. I am not prepared to deal with it now by answering an immediate question. It is the question of policy which lies at the root of the whole subject.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am glad the point has been raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). It has been admitted by Members from Ulster that the disbandment of this force began in the week following Christmas. Then the force was in existence for about nine months instead of 12. The amount of money granted is about equal to the whole sum granted for the previous 12 months. There was, therefore, a saving for the 12 months of a sum equal to £300,000. It has been suggested that part of that sum would be expended in the form of a bonus to the men who were being disbanded. I think the real explanation of the footnote is to be found in the balance of £300,000. I think that unexpended £300,000 explains the necessity for the footnote. It is a most inexplicable thing. Here is an undefined sum. It may be £300,000. It may be less. It may be only £100,000 that remained after all claims on this fund for constabulary purposes had been met. But in any case it is a sum of money that belongs to the British Exchequer and not to the Government of Northern Ireland. There is the question that the Financial Secretary does not deign to explain. He says it is a usual bargain. I should think it a most unusual bargain. I cannot imagine any private person
acting in this manner, and if there is any reason for opposition to this Grant-in-Aid it is to be found in this extraordinary footnote, that there is to be no audit and no supervision.
Did disbandment of any section of this force begin before Christmas in anticipation of a settlement? Is it possible that any of these 24,000 men were disbanded before the disbandment of the more regularly employed forces of the constabulary? If so, the £300,000 might easily become a great deal more than £300,000. It might easily happen that if disbandment began in anticipation of a settlement before the definite disbandment of the more regular forces, instead of saving £300,000 there might be a saving of £500,000, and I cannot believe that £500,000, or even £300,000, would go in pensions to the men who were disbanded. We have a right to press for a definite answer to the question as to what is the amount that was saved, and why is this extraordinary provision made that the balance is not to come back. According to the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite, the sadly-pressed British taxpayer, who must look for economy in all parts of the country, who is compelled to probe sedulously expenditure of the most minute character, must not be given any advantage under this arrangement. If there is anything in excess of the needs of the Northern Ireland Government, that balance must not come back. If that balance did come back, it might save the employment of a few typists in our Government offices when the economy campaign comes into full swing. It might save the Unemployment Insurance Fund to that extent. It might save the employment of some poor charwomen. The saving will be thousands of pounds, and yet the Northern Ireland Parliament are to keep the balance, in addition to the very generous bargain which they have extracted from the Government already. Except in so far as the balance could be kept in strict accord with the law, I suggest that the balance should come back to those who are so generously paying out to Northern Ireland.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I confess to a feeling of alarm at the discussions which go on between representatives of the Exchequer and representatives of foreign interests and home interests, one
of the results of which we are discussing to-day. If we are to pay at the rate of £200,000 for every peroration which a Cabinet Minister makes at a Civil Service dinner, or at a function in Ulster, we shall soon be a bankrupt nation. I am amazed to find that this discussion was proceeding in regard to a guarantee made to Northern Ireland for the payment of hard cash to the extent of £1,200,000 without any conditions, without any supervision whatever. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in seeking to explain the fact that no proportion of this sum can be returned in any circumstances, blandly turns to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and said, "This is a Grant-in-Aid." Whereupon the hon. Member asked, "Why is it a Grant-in-Aid?" I should like to repeat that question. Why is not this sum liable to surrender if there remains an unspent balance? It is no use saying that it is a Grant-in-Aid. Some financial procedure could have been adopted which would have entitled us to claim a return of part of this sum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey my remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he deems them of sufficient importance.
We are entitled to have some information how this money is to be expended. In 1924–25 when we paid £1,250,000, that was a sufficiently high proportion of the expenditure which the Northern Ireland Government were going to undertake in respect of the constabulary. This year the proportion is even higher, notwithstanding that the expenditure is about £50,000 less. What is the total expenditure on this constabulary in Northern Ireland? Are we paying one-quarter, one-half or 90 per cent. of the expenditure on this constabulary? Before we vote this sum we ought to know these facts. I appeal to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that when they are in Ulster, or at a Civil Service function, or when they are dealing with foreign affairs, they should not make these prodigal gestures of generosity, at the expense of the British taxpayers.
This is a financial matter. I am not concerned with the old wrongs and complaints which Northern Ireland has had with Southern Ireland. This is merely a question as to which taxpayers, the Northern Ireland taxpayers or the tax-
payers of this country should pay. I believe there are a great many wealthy men in Northern Ireland, at least as many wealthy men as there are in many of the constituencies represented in this House. The taxpayers of this country are already hard pressed, meeting the claims of every nation in the world, and yet we are asked to pay. The question is: should the taxpayers of this country pay or should it not be a question of an extra 2d. on the Income Tax for the taxpayers of Northern Ireland?
I am entitled to mention as an example of the undue generosity of Cabinet Ministers, the fact that the Foreign Secretary, at the Civil Service dinner, made a peroration which cost us £200,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's dialogue with Italy cost us untold millions, and hi6 dialogue with France has cost us many millions, the extent of which we have yet to discover. The Prime Minister's dialogue with American financiers some years ago is costing us £30,000,000 a year, while his dialogue with the coalowners and the miners costs us £15,000,000 a year. He has already given to Northern Ireland, in addition to this sum on account of unemployment insurance and constabulary, a considerable sum, because he has forfeited the British claims for a large amount of money in respect of munitions of war supplied to Northern Ireland at a time when fever was running very high between Northern and Southern Ireland How much does that amount to? We are entitled to know all these things. I beg right hon. Members on behalf of my own constituents, and I am sure the plea will be shared by other hon. Members, that they should not be too generous with the taxpayers' money, but should stick out for a few of our own people who are already very hard hit.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I wish to revert to a point raised by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). The memories called up by my hon. Friend must have reminded us that the special constabulary in Northern Ireland, on behalf of whom this grant is to be made, have not exactly conferred on the community those wonderful benefits that were painted in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown was received by a considerable amount of contempt by hon. Members opposite, but
hon. Members would do well to remember that there are still to be settled certain matters in which there are painful issues. It is not wise to assume that because you have apparently peace and quiet in Ulster, induced by force majeure, that that is an end of all your troubles. Apparently, by means of Prussian militarism in Alsace-Lorraine for 50 years there was peace and quiet, but the issues were not settled. The proposal now before us for bonuses for special constabulary in Ulster makes me suggest that we should have some greater undertaking from the hon. Members representing Ulster regarding the settlement of past difficulties and past hatreds.
Could we have had from them, for example, a better undertaking regarding the men who are still in prison, we should have appreciated it. We are glad that some of the men have been released, but they are not all released, and there is still bitterness and discontent. Could we have cleared that matter out of the way, I am sure the House could have contemplated the future with better prospect of settlement of outstanding difficulties than seems likely to be the case. Unfortunately, we are not yet in that position, and I am afraid that many if the issues that have been raised in connection with this Debate mean that there are matters still to be settled in the future, and that, instead of going forward to a new era of peace, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes, we shall get instead all sorts of questions and new resentments added to some of the older ones not yet settled.
The hon. Member for Ilford, who is a great expert in financial questions, raised the issue regarding the note printed at the bottom of the page respecting the Grant-in-Aid. It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that a note similar to this is to be found usually at the foot of statements regarding Grants-in-Aid, but this is not a Grant-in-Aid in the ordinary sense. We are told that it is a final settlement and that the matter is never to come up again. If it were to be regarded as a final settlement then if there be a surplus, as seems likely, after the payment to the Special Constabulary and the payment of certain bonuses,
that surplus ought to come back into the very hard-pressed British Exchequer. I am amazed at hon. Members opposite, who profess to be so keen about this issue of national economy, that they should allow a matter like this to go through almost without comment, leaving it practically to only one Member on the other side to raise the issue.
We are faced in this country by shortage of money for things which are badly needed. We are told that proposals for the education of the children must be cut down, that proposals in every direction regarding unemployment and the health of the people will be subject to reduction, and yet hon. Members are prepared to hand over holus bolus this great sum of public money, on the understanding that if all the money be not required to meet the case as set down in this Vote, nothing will be said about it, and the Government of Northern Ireland can use it in Whatever way they like. That is not the way to carry out the promises so frequently made by hon. Members opposite, to pay careful attention to the question of economy. We protest vigorously and we are glad to be reinforced in our protest by one hon. Member on the other side of the House. Even at this late hour we do ask that the balance, if balance there be, shall come back to the British Exchequer.

Mr. McNEILL: I ought to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat. He asks a question based on a strong criticism in regard to this being a Grant-in-Aid. I do not know in what other form this money could have been advanced except as a Grant-in-Aid. It is the usual form in which money is given from the Exchequer out of the general taxpayers' money in aid of any object of local administration. I think there is a good deal of misapprehension on this matter. The hon. Member opposite showed some indignation and said that the money which was unspent should come back to the hard-pressed British Exchequer. In a sense I quite agree. We have a hard-pressed Exchequer, and it is very important that money that can be got into it legitimately should come back. But the hon. Member, and others who have spoken in this Debate and that which immediately preceded it, seemed to be under the impression that a large amount of money is being taken out of the
pockets of the British taxpayer and sent across the Channel to Ireland. That is their view, but, except in a sense which I will explain in a moment, as a matter of fact not one penny is going out of the taxpayers' pockets to Ireland. Every penny of this money which is now being voted is money collected in Ulster by the tax machinery of this country, just as much as though they had collected taxes in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then, having collected the taxes in Lancashire and Yorkshire, give a Grant-in-Aid to assist some local object there. That is the fact; all this money is more than covered by the amount of taxation derived from Northern Ireland

Mr. LANSBURY: It goes into a pool.

Mr. McNEILL: It all goes into a pool. The actual amount of money in taxation which is contributable by Northern Ireland and derived from Northern Ireland, and which is put into the pool here, exceeds all that this Parliament is sending back to Northern Ireland. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the other day, there is a contribution from Northern Ireland to the Empire. The people in Northern Ireland are proud to give it—

Mr. LANSBURY: And so are the people in Poplar.

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, and they claim to be in the Empire on exactly the same footing as the people of Poplar. Do not let the Committee therefore make the mistake of thinking that the monetary transactions between these two Governments, the Imperial Government and a subordinate Government, is money taken out of the taxpayers' pockets of Great Britain as distinct from Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, all that it means is that the contribution from Northern Ireland is reduced by that amount. That is the only sense in which it can be said to come out of the British taxpayers' pocket. It is quite true that the contribution from Northern Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer might be larger. It began by being £7,000,000, but under the change in values it has gradually come down, but it still remains, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, during recent years an average of £1,250,000. So far from it being true to say with a great air of indignation that the unfortunate English taxpayer is being
called upon to pay these large subsidies to Northern Ireland, all it means is that the contributions which Northern Ireland pays to the Imperial Government are reduced by a certain amount.
That is a totally different way of looking at the matter. The view taken by hon. Members opposite, and by the hon. Member who seems to be leading the Liberal section at the moment, is an utterly mistaken one. I have not time to go into the points which the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) raised, or to reply to the elementary blunders he has made. He made the mistake, however, of assuming that this is an immense subsidy going from this country to Northern Ireland, whereas all that it means and all that it amounts to is a pro rata reduction.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). Will he tell us what it is proposed to do with regard to the question of prisoners. We are not allowed to Table questions on this matter. We are told that it is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, but now that we are being asked to bring about a settlement in regard to the money cost of the disturbances, may we not ask some representative from Ulster to tell us whether the time has not arrived for a general amnesty for those men and women who are still in prison for offences committed during that bad time. I hope we shall get a satisfactory answer.

Mr. D. REID: It is quite impossible for me to give a definite answer on that point. I understand that a number of the prisoners have already been released. The matter rests, of course, with the Home Office. They will release such prisoners as they consider should be released, and they will not release those prisoners they think ought not to be released.

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope hon. Members from Ulster will understand that these are not prisoners for whom the British Government is responsible—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the representatives of Ulster do not sit here as the representatives of the Ulster Government, and they are not responsible for
the Ulster Government. They represent their constituencies in the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. LANSBURY: They have spoken in this House on behalf of the finances of Ulster, and I congratulate them on their success. I should like to remind those to whom this question should be addressed that we on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed on the question of those prisoners who are housed in this country and for whom we are obliged to find accommodation. The British Government are not responsible for them. We are now being asked to vote this sum of money in order to bring about the financial settlement of a very ugly set of circumstances in Ireland, and we feel that before a vote is taken, before any decision is come to on the matter, we should have some satisfactory answer from someone representing Ulster on the question of an amnesty for these prisoners. Some of them are charged with terrible offences—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I ought to have allowed the hon. Member to resume his speech on this point, because there is no one in this House responsible for the Government of Ireland who can answer his question.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: On that point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting this Vote, based a large part of his case on the pacification which had been achieved as the result of this expenditure, and I understand my hon. Friend is merely asking a question on one point of pacification—namely, the position of the prisoners. I suggest to you that it is in order on this Vote.

Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I should be most glad to respond in any way I can to the appeals that have been made, but I have no knowledge whatever of the matter. The point was never brought to my notice beforehand, and communication with the Government of Northern Ireland beforehand is necessary in order to answer the question.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement, but it is true that on this side of the House representations have been made in this sense. This agreement
was in our opinion a reconciliation, we hoped it was a reconciliation, and a permanent reconciliation between the North and South of Ireland. We are not in the least desirous of raising old controversies. On the contrary, we congratulate them on the settlement, but the object of my hon. Friend is to effect a real step towards the reconciliation which we all desire. It is known that there are numbers of people charged with these offences, and all my hon. Friend wants is that representations will be made in the spirit in which he speaks for an amnesty of some kind which will enable us to start with a clean slate.

Major CRAWFURD: I am sure every Member on this side of the House, and on all sides of the House, will agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think the Committee ought to allow its attention to be diverted from the extraordinary reply which the Financial Secretary has given to the criticisms advanced on this Vote. At the beginning of his reply he said, referring to the form of a Grant-in-Aid, and to the fact that no balance could be returned to the British Exchequer, that it was a matter of policy. Later on, in giving his considered reply to the Debate, he did not develop that point of policy at all, and I think the Committee is still in ignorance as to the policy which has suggested this particular form of money grant. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of another observation he made in reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson). He said,"What form could it have taken if not a Grant-in-Aid?"
8.0 P.M
It may be there is no other form, but I would suggest to him that it would have been possible to make the Grant-in-Aid in such a way that there would not have been any reasonable probability of a surplus, so that any balance that remained would still be due to the Government of Northern Ireland, and not due from them to us. In the one case it could be paid and in the other case apparently it could not be paid. I throw out the suggestion, not knowing the intricacies of the system. In spite of the strictures which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was pleased to pass on, the hon. and gallant Member for South
Hackney (Captain Garro—Jones), what his argument amounted to was this: If I steal from you £2 the effect is not the same as if I did not pay £2 that I owe you. In effect that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. In either case, the taxpayer of this country is short by the amount of that surplus which is not going to be repaid. You can have it whichever way you like, plus on the one side or minus on the other, but the effect is the same. I would like the Committee to hear the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on this matter. I am sure that the Committee will not be misled by the extraordinary elementary mistake that the right hon. Gentleman made in trying to give us an explanation.

Mr. MAXTON: I have not been present during a great part of the Debate, but I have gathered that one hon. Member on the other side has criticised this expenditure on the part of the Government, and it therefore may not be inappropriate for one Member on this side to take the view that I propose to take, namely, not to vote against this particular Estimate. I could not see my way to vote against the last Estimate dealing with the unemployed in Northern Ireland, and I cannot see my way to vote against this one either. This Colony of Northern Ireland had to start a new form of government under very difficult circumstances, with a history of disturbance and expense preceding it, and landing into a period of very great trade depression. The big industry of the community, the shipbuilding industry, has been very seriously hit by the general industrial depression. The form of government which the Northern Ireland people have chosen is not the form of government which I would have chosen for them, but it is the form of government that they have chosen, and it is only right and fair that they should start on their work of developing this new community without any undue hardships being imposed upon them.
I am, therefore, strongly in favour of this House relieving them of every possible burden. I am strongly impressed also by the fact that in that particular corner of the British Empire we have, perhaps, a higher percentage of poor working class people than in any other part of the country, with the exception of my own district of the Clyde.
I think I have a right to assume that sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, the Government of that country will be under the control of representatives of organised labour. I am glad to see that organised labour is already represented in the Ulster Parliament. I take some little pleasure in the fact that I had an opportunity of taking part in their Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, and I am glad to be able to say that I received considerable service from the police, for whom we are voting this money to-day. There is there that small Labour group, which, I have not the faintest doubt, will grow until it is the dominating force in the Northern Ireland colony. I do not want that Labour Government of the future to inherit, as the last Labour Government had to inherit in this country, very little from their predecessors except a national debt. That is about all that we are going to have in Northern Ireland if this country imposes upon it intolerable burdens.
We have paid previously the four or five years' instalments, and why should we swallow the camel and get the hump about the gnat? I understand that this is the last payment for this particular purpose. Although I recognise fully that there is no one here to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland officially, I know of the very great influence that the Members from Northern Ireland have with the Ulster Government, and I would press them to extend their clemency towards their political opponents who are in prison, to the absolute limit of generosity. I think it would make for very great harmony if they even went the length of liberating men whose offences have passed beyond what can be regarded as purely political and took something of the nature of criminal offences. I think a great good would be got if that were done, and I am sure that the hon. Members concerned will use their very good offices in that direction with the Government of Ulster.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask the Minister who is really responsible, the Home Secretary, to undertake to make the necessary representations to the Northern Ireland Government as to what we feel deeply—that the spirit behind this settlement can be interpreted only by a clean sheet?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I thought the House understood that, immediately after the last happy conclusion of the difficulties in regard to Ireland, I sent across to Northern Ireland for a full list of all the prisoners who were there. That list was submitted to a Committee of the Cabinet, which went through it, and nearly the whole of the prisoners have been released. There are only two or three who have not been releasd.

Mr. LANSBURY: Thirty. I have along list here.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had been ill, and I was away at the time when the list was gone through, but a considerable number were released, and my impression is that only a very few were left. They were in no sense political prisoners, but had committed very serious offences, involving the death of a man. But I am quite willing to make the fullest possible

inquiries into the matter. I cannot give any pledge that any further pardon will be granted. A very great number have been pardoned, but I will go further into the matter and communicate with the Northern Ireland Government.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It would be a pity if this Debate ended on a note of sentiment rather than of finance. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that there was no method by which a sum could be paid to a local authority except by a Grant-in-Aid, and. under a Grant-in-Aid any surplus remaining unexpended cannot be returned to the Exchequer. If that be the case, cannot some steps be taken, in the interests of economy, to establish some such procedure for the future?

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,199,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 235.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Livingstone, A. M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C.(Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Fenby, T. D.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John s.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wright, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Riley, Ben



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
TELLERS for the AYES.—


Groves, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oakley, T.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harlington, Marquess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Philipson, Mabel


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pielou, D. P


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Pilcher, G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hawke, John Anthony
Preston, William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain M.
Homan, C. W. J.
Rye, F. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Christie, J. A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Couper, J. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampoon, Corn. O. (Handsw'th)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson. Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


England, Colonel A.
MacIntyre, I.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McLean, Major A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacMillan, Captain H.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Centre)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fleiden, E. B.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Meller, R. J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Womersley, W. J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wragg, Herbert


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.



Gee, Captain R.
Moore-Brabazon, "Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord Stanley.


Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive



Gower, Sir Robert
Murchison, C. K.



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

CLAIMS OF EX-NAVAL AND MILITARY CIVIL SERVANTS.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: I beg to move
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived to appoint a Select Committee, with Treasury representation, to consider and report upon the best means of giving effect to the recommendations of the Ward Committee of 1906, who reported that, in the case of ex-service civil servants, previous non-pensionable service in the Navy or Army shall be included for the purpose of their Civil Service pensions.
This matter has been the subject of many debates and questions in this House during the past 25 or 30 years, and I think the objects of the Resolution are fairly well known to all hon. Members. What we ask to-night is that a Select Committee should be set up to consider the best way of putting into effect the recommendations of the Ward Committee of 1906. With the permission of the House I will refer to the composition of the Ward Committee, and its terms of reference, and I propose to give some extracts from its Report. This was an Inter-Departmental Committee representing the War Office and the Admiralty. The chairman was Sir Edward Ward and the other War Office representatives included the late Lord Cheylesmore. Pay master-in-Chief C. E. Giffard represented the Admiralty and other members of the Committee were Sir Frederick Harrison, General Manager of the London and North Western Railway; the Chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and two representatives of the Directors of Recruiting at the War Office. That very strong Committee went fully into the case of these men. Its terms of reference provided that it was to consider and report generally on the whole question of the civil employment of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers. Section 43 of the Report reads as follows:
At present ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who, having been discharged from the Army or Navy without pension, subsequently obtain an established position in the Civil Service, are debarred from reckoning any military or naval service for pension. The disadvantage of such an arrangement to the ex-soldier and sailor may best be illustrated in the following manner:.
'A' joins the Civil Service at the age of 19, and 'B' joins the Army at the same age, and obtains, on his discharge at the
age of 26, a Civil Service appointment. Both men, their total service being equal, are superannuated at the age of 60. 'A,' whose service has been entirely civil, receives a maximum pension of 40/60ths, and 'B,' not being able to count his military service, receives only 34/60ths of his salary. In point of fact, the longer the Army service the greater will be the disproportion in favour of the civilian. Such an arrangement as this is, in our opinion, inequitable, and rest upon a purely arbitrary basis, for Army or Navy service, with its attendant risks, should be regarded as at least equivalent in its pension—bearing value to Civil Service; and the existence of a rule which declines to recognise the former as such is not unnaturally viewed by those concerned as unjust.
The report goes on:
An amalgamation of civil and naval service for civil superannuation is admitted in the case of certain shipwright boys who engage to serve for 12 years from the age of 18 in the Fleet, and are then transferred to the civil establishment of His Majesty's dockyards, being held liable to sea service in emergency up to the age of 50, and for this purpose enrolled in the Royal Fleet Reserve. 'Seatime' is allowed in all such cases to reckon for civil superannuation. Similar provision is made in regard to dockyard riggers and seamen in yard craft by Order in Council of 16th April, 1861, and the civil servant who joins the police carries with him his civil service towards pension under the Police Act, 1890.
Now comes the recommendation of the Committee under this head:
We recommend that similar treatment should be accorded to ex-soldiers and sailors who, having received no Army or Navy pension, are eventually appointed to pensionable posts in the Civil Service, and that if there is not power under the existing law to carry this recommendation, early steps should be taken to obtain legislative authority to remedy this legitimate grievance.
This was the Report of the Ward Committee of 1906. We have now got to the year 1926, and no steps have been taken by successive Governments to put that recommendation into effect. It seems to me that what held good in 1906 holds good now—the principle is the same—and I can see no reason, except on the score of expense, with which I shall deal later, why it should not have been adopted years ago. It must be on the face of it morally right and just that two men entering the employment of the same employer, in this case the State, at the same age, and continuing in it for 40 years or so, should on retiring have the same pension. In the higher grades of the Civil Service people are transferred
from one Government Department to another, but when they are transferred from the India Office to the Admiralty, or from the India Office to the Irish Office, of which there have been cases, they do not immediately lose the whole of their former service and have to start again, but that is what is happening now with these men. The whole of their Army or Navy service counts for nothing at all, unless they have served for 21 years in the Army and 22 years in the Navy, when they get a pension. In civil life this would never happen at all. Frequently men go into private employment with a firm. They go into one department at 18 or 19 years of age, and they may be transferred to another department in three or four years' time, but any pension scheme which that firm has counts from the time they enter the employment of the firm and not from the moment they go into their last job. It seems to me that there can be no moral reason whatever why this system should not be applied to the colour service of men serving in the Army and Navy, and also in the Air Force. Naturally, in the Resolution I cannot mention the Air Force by name, because it did not exist at the time of the Ward Committee in 1906, but the Resolution really, of course, applies to the Air Force just the same as to the Army and Navy.
I come now to another point, and that is the inducement it would be for the right standard of recruit to enter the fighting services if this recommendation were put into force. It would be a very fine inducement for a man of good character, ambitious, wanting to get on, to know that if he enters the Army at the age of 18, serves seven years, and then goes on into another Government Department, such as the Post Office, those seven years of his Army life, seven of the best years of his life, possibly, would count towards his final pension. I am sure at the present time there are many youths of 18 or 19 who would willingly go into the Army, partly because of the attraction of Army life, and partly because of the chance it would give them of seeing foreign countries, which they would not see otherwise, who are deterred by the fact that in some way even now, though not so much as in the past, that Army or Navy life seems but a blind alley, and there is always the fear that, on retire-
ment at the end of seven, 12, or 21 years, there will be a difficulty about their further employment. It seems to me that if we held out this inducement to young men we should get a far higher standard of recruit coming into the forces, with a certain knowledge that, if he conducted himself well and did nothing foolish, at the end of his Army career of seven or 12 years, when he might pass on to another Government Department, instead of those seven or 12 years being wasted they would all count towards his final pension on retirement at 60. I do not know what the exact recruiting figures at the present time are, but I remember questions in this House recently which brought out the fact that the standard of recruits presenting themselves for enlistment in the Army was not very high. The physical standard was poor, and a great many people were rejected, but if we could have this recommendation carried into effect, I am certain that a very much better class of recruit would offer himself for enlistment.
Now we come to what is really the crux of the whole matter, and that is the question of expense. In the past the sole objection of all Governments who have turned down this recommendation of the Ward Committee has been on the score of expense. I think that everybody, from the days of the Liberal Government in 1906 to those of the Labour Government of the year before last, has agreed that morally the thing was right and just, and that it would be useful and a help to the general efficiency of the Services and of the Civil Service, but they have turned it down because they thought it would be too expensive. I venture to say, with great respect to the very formidable array of people who are going to sit on me when I have finished, that I think we are rather at cross purposes on the subject of expense and of the number of people who would come under this actual recommendation. I have been told officially by the Treasury that this would involve the enormous sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 or more, but the whole of this Resolution is based on the actual ex-regular soldiers and sailors. We are not including the hostility men, who enlisted for the duration of the War. They enlisted under contract, and received a gratuity on demobilisation at the end of
the War. The people with whom we are trying to deal to-night are a very limited number of men, who enlisted under a regular contract for seven years with the colours and five years with the reserve, and then passed on into the Civil Service. I have gone very carefully into the figures which have been supplied to me by the United Association of Ex-Naval and Military Civil Servants, who have the whole time conducted this, I will not say agitation, but demand, for the last 20 or 30 years, in a very reasonable and proper spirit. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who received a deputation which I accompanied a couple of months ago, will agree that the case was put forward most reasonably and tellingly, and without any accusations in regard to past treatment. I think these figures, therefore, can be taken as substantially correct.
The number of ex-regular soldiers and sailors at present employed by the Government in the Civil Service is roughly about 17,000. I do not want the House to muddle up the ex-regulars and the hostility men; I am talking entirely about the ex-regulars. The number who would retire annually out of this 17,000 would be, roughly, 2 per cent., which works out at about 340. The average salary would be £119 per annum, plus £78 bonus, which works out at about £197. Allowing an average of eight years' colour service for each, this would add £19 14s. per annum to each man's pension, being 8/80ths of the £197. That total for each year would embrace 340 men, and the total cost of their actual pensions would be £6,698. In addition, you would have the gratuity which is paid on retirement at the age of 60, which would work out for those 340 men at an additional £16,000, so that for those 340 men, the 2 per cent. of men retiring annually, the total cost would be, roughly, £23,000. Out of that £23,000, only the £6,000 odd for pensions would be recurring. The gratuity would not recur to those men. Therefore, the cost for the present year, if this were granted, would be roughly £23,000, and next year it would be the £6,000 for the pensions of the men who retire this year, and an additional £6,000 for the 2 per cent. retiring next year, making £12,000, plus the new gratuity for the men retiring next year, but not the gratuity being paid this year.
Therefore, for this year, the cost will be, roughly, £23,000 and for next year, roughly, £30,000, and will increase by not more than, roughly, £7,000 each year, and you have got to allow a certain amount off that for the people who die. Therefore, I cannot think that, even in the present time of almost national emergency and the necessity for national economy, that this is going to be a very large sum. I do not want to touch on anybody's corns too much, but it would take seven or eight years for these pensions to reach the figure of £200,000, which was talked about so much recently for sports fields for the Civil Service, and, naturally, these men who have been trying to get this additional small pension, which would make all the difference on their retirement, cannot help contrasting the stubbornness of the Government in refusing this slight concession, and their willingness, until pressure was brought upon them, to give the £200,000 for sports grounds. Of course, there is another point. If the general system of disarmament comes along, as we all hope it will, provided it is entirely universal, the number of people employed in the Army and the Navy will be decreased and there would be still fewer to draw pensions.
I am afraid I have dealt with this subject very inadequately, and not nearly so clearly and concisely as I could have wished, but I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to try to separate what we are really asking for and what the Treasury has always accused us of asking, because there is a very big difference between the sum of £23,000 we want for this year and the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which they have frequently talked about. We are not asking for the money straight away, but for consideration of the recommendations of the Ward Committee of 1906, and the best ways of putting them into effect, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to meet us half way and to have a Committee of some sort to consider this matter. It is a very real grievance, only involving a small sum, but involving a class of men who have served the whole of their life in the State service, and I feel that this Government, of whom I am one of the warmest supporters in this House, would do well to remember these men are their servants, that they have
served the State well, and both on moral grounds and on grounds of expediency I hope the Government will see their way to grant what we ask for.

Brigadier-General WARNER: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to deal with other precedents which seem analogous to the claim raised on behalf of these ex-service men. A policeman, for instance, on leaving the police force and joining the Civil Service, under Section 14 of the Police Act of 1890, is allowed to count for pension service in the Civil Service, four years for each three years of his service in the police. I am quite aware that he has subscribed for his pension, and, perhaps, on that account he is allowed the extra year for pension service in the Civil Service after leaving the police service. But if the policemen are to have their police service recognised, why should not the ex-Army and ex-Naval men? If they went into ordinary civil life, they would be on the same basis; neither of them would be pensionable at all. So I do not see, because they go into the service of the State, there should be any difference whatsoever. Quite recently the Treasury has admitted that certain telegraph messengers who joined up at the age of 18 prior to the War should, on return to those posts which had been kept open for them in the Post Office service, be eligible for pay and pension from the time that they first entered the service, counting their military service, and they were never on the establishment. Then, again, we have the case of the telegraph messengers who are now encouraged to enlist, and told that when they come back there will be places earmarked for them which will be given to them if their characters in the service are reported as having been good. But those men when they return will not be eligible for pensions for the time they have served. When the original telegraph companies were taken over by the State, the whole of their employés were allowed to reckon their service for pension service from the time they joined those telegraph companies.
I was very glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Resolution refer to the Air Force, because I consider that on any questions connected with the Service we should always consider their claims. In the Air Force
we have at present a certain number of mechanics who are not skilled men. They would be available for posts such as postmen, but we have also a very large number of highly skilled men—telegraphists, wireless men, telephonists and skilled engineering men. Later on they may enter certain parts of the Civil Service. Are we going to keep those excellent men out? Are we going so to treat them that they are not eligible to have their pensions from the time they joined the Service? It would not be fair in any way to do that, and I think we have to look forward if we want to get good recruits to justify the work they do while serving in the Army, Navy or Air Service. Lately, we have had broadcasted through the wireless the great advantage of joining certain branches of the Service, and it has also been advertised by other methods. I think a greater advantage would be if the large number of ex-service men dotted all over the country in the Civil Service were able to tell the young men how well they had been treated, and encourage them to join. Instead of that, what do we find? We find up and down the country a large number of disgruntled men who are grousing at the terms under which they are serving, and I am sure that they deter in a great measure the right class of men from entering the Service.
It is too big a handicap to ask the soldier, after seven years' service, to start on the same lines as the civilian. When he enters the Civil Service he receives different treatment to the man from the National Telephone Service, or the man who comes in from the other branches to which I have referred. He has to be sure of having a good character. He has to undergo a medical examination. Each of these things, of course, are quite right and are justified; but when he starts he generally has to run up a ladder, and he is only a temporary employé. His Army and Navy service is ignored, and he is more or less penalised as a servant of the State for having served in the Army and Navy; whereas, if he had been a civilian all the time, he would have the advantage of it. Some 30 years ago, when the poems of Mr. Rudyard Kipling began to be known in the country, they aroused a certain amount of emotion and enthusiasm for Tommy Atkins. To-day we have gone a much longer step than that. Every right-
minded and thinking man and woman in this country wants to do the best they can for the ex-Service men. I regard this Motion as a means to an end; to put right the grievance which is felt by these men. I am sure that if we do that we shall have a certain justification in the action we take.

Mr. AMMON: I rise to support the proposal before the House. I should make it clear that I do so in my individual capacity as a Member of the House, and not in any way as committing any other hon. Member on these benches. It may be within the recollection of the House that on 7th August last my hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) and myself raised this question. We brought forward many of the points advanced by the hon. and gallant Members who proposed and seconded the Motion. They have in the main stated the salient facts in regard to the position of the men on whose behalf they moved this Resolution. I hope the House will bear in mind in this discussion that it is what are called the professional soldiers and sailors with which this Resolution deals; that it has no regard to the hostilities men who joined up in 1914–18. Special terms were made for these. They are not included in this. Practically every adult man was a soldier. It ought to be borne in mind that the amount of money that is being asked for is not being called for in one lump sum. It is to be spread over a great many years, so that I am inclined to think that the figures which were put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Captain Hope) are outside what may be required, and that the figure is within a narrow limit; for it has to be remembered that in the main part these men will not come on this fund until they are 60 or 65 years of age. That means that it will be a rapidly diminishing payment, and that you are not likely to exceed the amount in any one year that has been paid out over the preceding period. The only other men who are concerned are those who leave before they have completed their pensionable service, and they are disposed of by one gratuity payment.
The Ward Committee were in the main concerned with the failure to get the right
sort of recruits for the Army and the Navy. They brought forward reasons for this state of affairs, and said that we should make it clear that these men were not going into a blind-alley occupation, or that, having served their country, they would be taken and thrown upon the unemployment scrapheap. That is a point that we want to raise now. We want the House particularly to remember that under present conditions 70 per cent. of postmen who enter the service are recruited from the Army and Navy. These men are paid a comparatively small sum of money and their pensionable rates are based on that. It will be seen that it is seven or eight years deducted from pensionable service that makes all the difference between poverty and a certain level of comparative relief from anxiety. There is not quite the same position in the case of the boys mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion, because, after all, they were in the position of civilians who had gone out; they had their places safeguarded for them during the hostilities of 1914 onwards. I say that because I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his clever debating skill to cut in and try to score a point on that. We are not concerned about the hostilities people.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Why not?

Mr. AMMON: The people for whom we are specially concerned are the professional soldiers and sailors. The hostilities men were in an entirely different position altogether. 80,000 Post Office servants joined the Forces. They were in the position of civilians. Their position was safeguarded, and special terms were given to them. They got back their civilian positions when they returned. That is the whole difference between these people and the professional soldier and sailor.
The professional soldier entered as a soldier either from economic reasons, or a desire for adventure, and to take advantage of all those glorious opportunities held out to him on the posters referred to by the Mover and Seconder. His is an entirely different proposition. He returns to civil life. If the soldier enters the Civil Service in some position or other he has to satisfy certain Regulations, or if it is in the higher posts, he has to pass examinations. What is asked is that, in the interests of getting the very best type of recruit for the
special fighting Services, you should hold out some prospect to the men that when they have finished their work they are not going to be thrown upon the industrial scrapheap, or that they will not be victimised because of the service they have done, but that this should be counted continuously for pension. We must bear in mind that it is practically nearly a 30 or 40 years' prospect for these people even after they enter the Civil Service. You are not being called upon to foot the bill immediately, or being called upon to meet immediately very heavy payments.
The present Minister of Agriculture, when he replied to the Debate in August last, said it would mean a sum of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. Of course, he was then in the position that nobody could get up and correct the misapprehension which, quite unintentionally, he put before the House. It will not do anything of the sort. At no period can it exceed a sum of more than about £23,000 a year. I doubt whether it will be that, whether indeed that will be the average, because the mortality rate of the people who have reached 60 or 65 is in these days fairly high. After all, what are we asking the. House to do? We are not asking that the House should accept the statement of the case as it is put forward here, but that it should be sent to a committee for investigation, in order that there may be an inquiry into the recommendations of the Ward Committee. It must be remembered that that Committee was composed not only of representatives of the Army and Navy, but comprised also shrewd business men, who would have the interests of the taxpayer at heart; and when it is remembered that Sir George Livesey, who earned a certain amount of fame for breaking trade unionism in days gone by, was a Member of that Committee its Report might command the sympathy of even hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope the House will support the Resolution. It does not ask the House to commit itself right away to the expenditure of this money. The men who are concerned are so confident in the righteousness of their case that they are prepared to submit it to the scrutiny of a Select Committee of this House, and feel very pretty confident that when they have examined it the Committee will say
that they have a claim, in equity at least, for the consideration of the House.

Captain GEE: It often appears to be my fate to offend my own personal friends, but I am going to run the risk of that; it is not going to prevent me from doing what I conceive to be my duty. I say that being, I think, the only Member of this House, and the only one who ever has been in the House, who has had the very great honour and distinction of serving in the ranks, from the position of a private soldier upwards, for 22 years. I should have far more sympathy with the Motion which has been so ably moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain A. Hope) if he had asked the House to set up a Committee to go into the whole question, but he has not done that, because his Motion is for a Committee to report upon the best means of giving effect to the recommendations of the Ward Committee of 1906. It reminds me of my experiences when I joined the Army 36 years ago, when we had to sit down to listen to lectures on how the Battle of Waterloo was fought and won. Why rake up something in a Report presented 20 years ago? The condition of things to-day is entirely different. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of 17,000 ex-regular soldiers who are in the Civil Service, and subsequent speakers have been very careful to emphasise the point that this Motion applies only to the regular men, leaving out what they call the "hostilities men." Why should they be left out?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.

Captain GEE: We should have been in a very poor way in the War if it had not been for the manner in which these now despised hostilities men came along in their hundreds of thousands to back up the regular fighting troops. It is preposterous to think we could open a question of such gigantic proportions and confine it to regular soldiers. If we were to do such a thing it would be the biggest insult we could offer to those men who really did save England. I speak as an ex-regular, and am proud of the fact, but, after all, it was our job as regulars to fight, and it was not the job of those civilians, but they came along like Britishers and joined up in their millions. They stuck to the old country then, but now it is
proposed in this House that we should take no notice whatever of what are called the hostilities men.
9.0 P.M.
The next point with which I want to deal is the reference made by the hon. and gallant Member to people who join the Civil Service from the Army and the Navy requiring a good character and a clean bill of health. I have never met a saint in human life yet, and I am not sure that I am anxious to. I know very well that most of the hon. Members of this House think they are saints, but I am afraid I am talking to more sinners than saints; and the same thing applies to all Civil Service entrants. Whether they are ex-service people or civilians, when they want to join the Civil Service they have to produce a good character—if it be only a forged one! With reference to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton regarding civil servants, I would like to ask him does he mean the black-coated branch of the Civil Service, or does he mean those who join the Post Office, or those who become messengers? Also, has he forgotten entirely all those ex-service men who served the State and have now joined the Civil Service that is unpensionable in Woolwich Arsenal and the different dockyards? The first job for this Government is to see that all their present employés are pensionable before they attempt to bring more people in with a promise of pensions.
The hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Brigadier-General Warner) began his speech by talking about the anomalies of pensions. If we start talking of pension anomalies where are we going to end? If we want an anomaly we can take the case of an hon. Member of this House with 30 years' service, and a Captain in the Army, and who does not draw so much pension as a police constable who leaves after 25 years' service. There is an anomaly if you like! Then there was the question of telegraph messengers. What appears to be lost sight of is that the telegraph messengers who joined up in the Army sacrificed their contractual rights. We did not, as regular soldiers—it was part of our job to fight—and because the Post Office have for once fulfilled their obligations to an underling is it to be used as an
excuse to bring the whole lot in? Then the hon. and gallant Member went on to speak about disgruntled ex-service men in the Civil Service.
As a man who travels up and down this country a good deal and has many old comrades in the Civil Service, I emphatically object to the statement that they are disgruntled. A few here and there may be. Is there one hon. Member of this House who has not got something to "grouse" about? It is the privilege of soldiers to "grouse," and we are never happy unless we are "grousing," and the more we "grouse" the less we are inclined to get into mischief. I cannot let the observations of the hon. and gallant Member about the early writings of Kipling pass without remark—though I know it will be a most unpopular thing, for latterly that talented gentleman has done everything he could to laud up Tommy Atkins. But go to his earlier writings which the hon. and gallant Member referred to and read his "Soldiers Three"—the biggest and most cowardly and dastardly attack that was ever written on British Tommy Atkins—even up to the time of his
Cook's son, Duke's son, son of a belted Earl.
of the South African war. It is only recently that that talented gentleman has got to know Tommy Atkins as he really is, and to begin to understand that the man he slandered 30 or 40 years ago is really a gentleman in word and deed.
Now I turn to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ammon). I used the expression in this House four years ago, "God save the Army from their new found friends," and I have heard the hon. Member pleading to this House to do something for the ex-service men. Of all the bigoted, cast iron trade unions which when the War was over did their utmost to bolt and bar the door against the ex-service man, it was the Civil Service. We have had questions asked in this House to-day about 8,000 out of some 40,000 or 50,000 ex-service men who sat for an examination, and after months of waiting a decision has not yet been announced. Now we have men standing here pleading the cause of the ex-soldier, and it is almost enough to make Gilbert and Sullivan turn in their graves.
We have been told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that civilians who
left their employment and joined up during the War had their places guaranteed for them. I wonder whether in the years that have elapsed since the Armistice there has ever been a greater misstatement, perhaps inadvertently made, than that. If these hostility men, as they have been called, had had their places guaranteed should we have found 10,000 or 20,000 of these ex-service men walking the streets to-day? It is a wrong principle, because if we open this question for the ex-regular man, we must include those gallant civilians who helped the nation during a time of emergency.

Mr. W. BAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) has done the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) a very serious injustice. The hon. Member for North Camberwell is associated with a section of the Civil Service in regard to which it cannot be said that they have shown hostility to the entrance of ex-servicemen. Of the organisation to which we have the honour to belong at least 50 per cent. are men who have served in the Army or the Navy. I feel sure that there was no desire on the part of the hon. and gallant Member to misrepresent them.

Captain GEE: I was speaking of the Civil Service as a whole. We all know that the Post Office is a place where ex servicemen get decent treatment.

Mr. BAKER: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain A. Hope) on the courageous stand he has taken with regard to this Resolution, which raises a subject which is not new either to the hon. Member for North Camberwell or to myself. It is a subject which has engaged our attention over a long series of years, if not for the whole of the 36 years to which reference has been made. I realise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Resolution was taking a courageous course in tabling his Motion in face of the known opposition of the Government on this question, and I should like to congratulate him upon the stand which he has made. I want to bring this question down to a very small point. The claim is, as I understand it, that continuous service under the Crown should count for pension, and that claim has been continuously made for 30 years, and it has been based on the belief that service given in the Army, the Navy, or in
the Civil Service is service given to one head, and should consequently be regarded, if continuous, as service to the State which should be treated as one complete whole.
I do not want to weary the House by going over the recommendations of the Ward Committee. A paragraph from the Report of that Committee was quoted in full by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Resolution, and it definitely expresses the view of that important Committee. I understand that the attitude of the Treasury is that the Ward Committee went outside its terms of reference, and that it failed to take evidence upon this particular point. In reply to that I would respectfully submit that we need not be concerned here to-night whether the Ward Committee exceeded its terms of reference or whether it took sufficient evidence on the subject. I submit that the Report of the Ward Committee is material in this discussion, because it does go to prove that a body of impartial men, after careful consideration of this particular question, came to the definite conclusion that this claim was well founded, and was worthy of support.
It is the practice of this House to make a very great deal of pledges given in the past, and of pronouncements made by those who subsequently attain office. I do not want to be a party to any abuse of that particular practice, but it is perhaps worthy of note that according to my information, on 23rd April, 1908, in reply to a Parliamentary question by a gentleman named Colonel Seely, a Mr. Winston Churchill said:
That he was of the opinion that the Treasury should take into consideration ex-naval and military service in reckoning service towards pension, and he had reason to suppose that they were prepared to adopt that course.
In addition to that, and perhaps, if I may say so with respect, of even greater importance, in August, 1911, the present Prime Minister and the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury signed a Memorial asking that previous colour service should be recognised for pension purposes. I do not want to make too much of these points; I merely mention them in passing, just as items of interest. But I do submit to the House that I have not yet heard an argument to controvert the position that a man who enters the
Government service in one capacity, and serves the State faithfully and continuously in more than one Department, should be entitled to expect that such service should be regarded as a whole when he comes to be considered for superannuation. I do not know whether I have grasped the Treasury attitude aright, but, as I understand the position, their objection is not based on any ground at all other than that of financial stringency; and, powerful as that argument may be to-day, it has not been equally strong over the whole period during which this request has been made. On the 7th August last year, during the discussion to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell referred, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Agriculture said:
The overwhelming reason against opening this matter now is the question of expense. Civil Service pensions cost about £4,500,000 a year, and the Fighting Services pensions nearly £14,000,000 a year. At a time when national economy is so essential we could not really undertake to extend conditions which were not meditated in the original contract to the particular favoured section of the Fighting Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th August, 1925; col. 1847, Vol. 187.]
I do not altogether understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he spoke of "the favoured section of the Fighting Services," but I would remind the House of a statement which has already been made during this discussion, that at least 70 per cent. of the men who are being spoken of here to-night fill poorly paid positions in the Post Office, and I suppose that in the main even a larger percentage are filling lowly paid positions' throughout the Civil Service. It is a matter of very considerable moment, to a man about to be compulsorily retired from the Civil Service, whether or no a period of eight years shall be added to the superannuation calculation. A man in a lowly paid position, whose pension is calculated upon a period less eight years, and who, according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Motion, is likely to suffer a loss of 10s. a week or more on his pension, will find a very material difference in his domestic conditions after his retirement has taken place, and I would make a very special appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to have some regard to the effect upon the condition of these men when they are
forced to retire on something less than the full pension to which their civil colleagues are entitled.
In my view, it is no reply, after 30 years of agitation, to say that the State is not in a position to afford to make this reform. I believe that there are very many anomalies in connection with our Civil Service pension system at the moment, and, when the Labour Government was in office, I took the opportunity on at least two occasions to plead for an inquiry. That is the plea that I want to make to-night, and, just as I made it when the Labour Government was in office, so I make it now, when the Labour party is in Opposition, because I believe it is not satisfactory that anomalies should continue to exist when those anomalies can be removed. My simple plea here to-night is that, for the well-being of the Civil Service, for the well-being of the community generally, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole superannuation system, with a view to the removal of every avoidable anomaly.

Commander FANSHAWE: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Captain A. Hope). A great many young men join the Fighting Services to-day who, perhaps, will not have a chance of going on to complete their full term of service. They will serve for seven years in the Army, or for 12 years in the Navy. I am sorry to say I do not know how long it is in the Air Force, but we all know one thing about the Air Force, anyhow, after yesterday's Debate, and that is that a man's flying life is very soon over, and that, at the end of that term, he is either going to join what some of the journals of this country call the ground forces of the Air Force, or he has to be disposed of in some other way. I say, as regards all these young men, who are in the prime of life at that time, throw open further Government employment for them if they are fit to carry out those duties, and count the whole of the time they are serving the Government towards their pension.
One thing has not been mentioned to-night, and that is that we have not attempted to give any definition of the word "pension." The true definition of the word "pension" is simply deferred pay. A young man who joins the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, and serves
for a short time, draws very low pay, and does not get his deferred pay at the end of that time at all. Why not let him go on with his present employer, the State, and earn that deferred pay in the further employment of the State? I had the honour, Mr. Speaker, little more than a week ago, of attending a function at your house, and I met there the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was dressed in the uniform which I was entitled to wear as a naval officer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I first saw him, also looked to me like a naval officer, but, when I got closer to him, I found that he was an Elder Brother of Trinity House, and he told me on that occasion that he ranked with some high official in the Naval Service. Apart from and beyond that, we know that the right hon. Gentleman has actually himself been in charge of His Majesty's Navy and of His Majesty's Army, and he cannot possibly be deaf to the appeals that are now being made to him on behalf of the young men who are leaving the forces in their prime of life.
The other day, if I may repeat what has been said already by one of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, the Government were thrusting at the heads of the Civil Service a sum of £200,000 which was really unrequired and unwanted by the Civil Service, and, after all, when all is said and done, at this time the provision of playing-fields must be regarded as a luxury. We are not, however, appealing for a luxury at all to-night; we are simply appealing that a man of 60, having served during the first part of his life of service to the State in the Army or the Navy, should not be deprived of one-tenth of his deferred pay. We know at this particular time that the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for Air are all very anxious and are engaged in setting up training establishments or classes for training men while they are still serving in the forces, so that they will not have to go out of employment when they leave the forces. They will still be able and fit to earn their living. I think that a large number of years of service in any of His Majesty's forces does not fit every person to enter civil life or employment on his discharge. Three of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues are engaging themselves seriously in this matter. Why
not open this other avenue? The Mover of the Motion said we shall be getting a better class of recruits into the Service. I appeal to him most strenuously not to close the door in the face of these young ex-service men. Be generous. If he will only reconsider this and allow this Select Committee to be set up, he will be very pleased in the long run that he has taken that action. I add my appeal to the appeal of my hon. Friends on this side and the other side of the House.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The only hon. Member who has opposed this Motion is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee), and if every ex-service man had the same qualities as he had I feel quite certain there would not be the same necessity for the action recommended. It is because he looks at it from a successful man's point of view that I feel I cannot quite agree with him. I daresay he has not always agreed with his generals, so he will pardon a general not agreeing with him. He stated that it was very antediluvian to go back to the Ward Commission. I think the Mover of this Motion showed that the same grievance is in existence now as it was 20 years ago. I was a soldier before the Ward Commission, and I can testify that that grievance weighed heavily among men in my regiment and many other commanding officers who had to see to their future when they left. It is a matter we talked of then, and I had always thought that, if I had the honour of getting here and helping to make laws, I would give my support to the Ward Commission.
Another criticism my hon. and gallant Friend made Was should not the "hostility men" as he called them—very gallant soldiers who came to our support—get the same treatment as the old ex-service men. In some ways they have got much more in the way of gratuities. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, all we regulars had to do was to do our duty. We saw others come in, in the South African War, at 7s. 6d. a day, while our men were getting 1s. One of any men, speaking of one of a new batch of recruits who had just come out, told me that one of them was the biggest waste in his village; yet he was paid 7s. 6d. a day, while the regular got 1s. "If I come home," he said, "and have the luck to get into
the Civil Service, still I must start life again." I also submit to my hon. and gallant Friend that no one has more respect than I have for what we called our hostility men, the men of Kitchener's Army, but would there have been any chance of them fighting at all or any chance for this country if it had not been that the "old contemptibles" kept the field till they were ready. And for that reason alone the old soldier deserves more of his country than he gets at the present moment.
I am very glad that we have the support of the Navy for the old sailor as well as the old soldier; I think that should always be a point in the Services. There is one point which has not been considered. Our Army is different from any army in the world, in that it is a voluntary Army. For that reason we have to pay certain wages which more assimilate to labour conditions than in any other army. You also have to give certain inducements to anyone who is going to make the Army his profession. For that reason alone the first thing you should do to these young fellows is to ensure as far as you possibly can that, when they leave after seven or 12 years, something more should be done for them than is done for the ordinary man in the army of any other country. They have done their seven or 12 years. They have to wait 21 years for a pension. If they leave after seven or 12 years, they have still a chance of getting on in civil life. I would only say in addition that every Civil Service Department should do what the Post Office has always done for the Army. I hope the Post Office will continue to do what they have done for the last 30 years, that is, to give 50 per cent of their places to old soldiers and sailors. If that were carried out in all the Civil Services, we might not need to press these Motions for better treatment for old soldiers and sailors. Unless there is some alternative of that sort, I will support the Mover of this Motion, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find some means of giving some addition to the security and pay of the old soldier and sailors.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate but after listening to the hon. and gallant Member
for Bosworth (Captain Gee) I did feel that his literary criticisms were not altogether just. As far as I am able to, I wish to enter my opposition to them. He referred particularly to the early works of Mr. Rudyard Kipling, and compared them with that remarkable piece of poetry, "Duke's son, cook's son," and so on, very much to the advantage of the latter and to the disadvantage of the former. The early works of Mr. Rudyard Kipling dealing with the Army give a very much better view of the Army and were much more creditable to the old soldier than those later works to which the hon. and gallant Member subsequently referred. In the nineteenth century there was the unfortunate verdict of the great Duke of Wellington on the fighting soldier. I am afraid that even in my very early days the village soldier was regarded with some contempt by civilians.
With regard to the Resolution, if I devote a few sentences to that, I shall be observing the unity of Debate which was observed by the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth himself. Hon. Members on all sides are extraordinarily generous when, it is a matter of other people's money. The Government on an occasion of this sort are always charged with being parsimonious and mean. It seems to me to be rather an abuse of language to call a Government mean or stingy, whatever they do, because you cannot be mean and stingy, and you cannot be generous on the other hand, with other people's money. Therefore I hope the House will disabuse its mind, in considering this question, and subsequently in voting upon it, of any idea that a charge of meanness against a Government is one that can be sustained. It has always appeared to me that there is one duty only of a Government or a municipality in regard to those it employs, that is the duty of getting the utmost possible efficient service out of them for the least possible amount of pay.
I am one of the few individualists left, and I would not for a moment, as an individualist, suggest that the individual employer, who is finding the pay out of his own pocket or out of his own profits, should adopt the attitude of squeezing his men down to the lowest degree, paying as little as he can for the most service he can get out of them. But when
we are dealing with other people's money, it is a very different case indeed, and as an individualist, I claim that it is the duty of every Department of the Government to do exactly as I have said, and to get for the public the greatest possible amount of efficient service at the lowest possible price. You cannot judge the merits of a Government by any ethical standard whatsoever. An ethical standard is one that can only be applied to an individual and not to an organisation. You cannot attach moral qualities to a Government, or a State, and therefore I hope hon. Members will disabuse their minds altogether of that extraordinary modern heresy that has grown up, and will see that it is the duty of the Government to resist this Resolution with all their power.

Captain FAIRFAX: I do not find myself greatly moved by the hon. Member who has just spoken, though I agree with him to this extent, that a Government cannot, strictly speaking, be accused of meanness or charged with generosity in dealing with money which does not belong to it. But I think it can be laid down that the business of a Government is to be economical and to observe a sense of proportion. I support the Resolution because I think, in observing a sense of proportion, the Government can still grant the comparatively small sum of money that is involved. It is the sense of proportion that should be looked at. I consider that it is perfectly relevant to contrast this with the suggested grant of £200,000 for a sports ground, and I should consider it equally relevant to contrast it with the £2,000,000 which I understand the Government propose to devote to a somewhat unprofitable coal mine in Kent. When you contrast that relatively small sum of £23,000 with the, in any case, large sum of £2,000,000, the Government should employ their sense of proportion and find it in their hearts and minds to grant that small sum to this deserving body of men. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will throw his mind back to the answer he gave in 1908 and will not swallow the promise he made then, and I hope he will find it possible to grant this amount. I see, on referring to the paper, that the Ward Committee only dates back to 1906, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) was rather stretching a point when he
compared it with teaching the soldier about the battle of Waterloo, which, if I remember rightly, happened in 1815. There is a lot of difference between 20 years and 111 years, and I think the recommendations of the Ward Committee might very well have been followed. I think particularly they might have been followed when one remembers that in 1906, in a time of comparative prosperity, that amount of money could have been granted within anyone feeling the pinch. Even now, in a time of financial stringency, this amount of money would be an economy in the real sense. Therefore I support the Resolution, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accede to it.

Captain FRASER: I cannot help rising to register a small protest against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) with regard to the duty of the State or a municipality in the matter of the employment of its servants. One realises the logic of his argument One realises that he allows the private person, as indeed he must, to employ whom he likes as he likes, and that so far as the State is concerned, because it is dealing with someone else's money, it must seek to secure the utmost possible service for the lowest possible pay. I will grant that that is logical enough, but I think there is a duty beyond the mere employment and getting the work done which devolves upon the State. It must, as far as it can, set an example, and especially where ex-service men are concerned, and if it is to bear that in mind it must have regard to the conditions under which its servants, and especially its ex-service servants, serve in order that there may be no finger of scorn pointed at it by those who seek to get out of their obligations, and who do not do all that might be expected of them in the matter of employing ex-service men under the most advantageous conditions.
I feel some little difficulty in coming to a decision as to what is the proper course to take upon this Motion. One could not help having a very great sympathy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did one not know how capable he is of dealing with all and any persons who set themselves up against him. But he is at present in a peculiarly strong position, as he usually contrives to find himself, for he has not yet disclosed to the House
what are the economies which it may be necessary for him to bring forward this very week, and as that is the case, and as he may be intending to take away from us concessions and benefits of even greater value than this one, he may be able perhaps to bring forward arguments which will make us pause before we see if it does not lie in our power to take some action on this matter. He may say, "Do not do this lest worst befall you. You do not know what is in my Economy Bill." One realises that difficulty, and it is only fair to say that in present conditions it is rather difficult to attempt to force upon the Government any action which involves a greater expenditure of money, when they are very definitely pledged and intend to bring forward a Bill which has exactly the opposite effect. That circumstance makes me feel some little difficulty in voting for this Motion.
On the other hand, I have very great sympathy for the men who are affected. I do not find myself in a position in which I think it necessary to include the hostility men, and I do not subscribe to the arguments which the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) introduced, that if we do for the Regular soldiers what we are not prepared to do for the hostility men we are in any way discounting or diminishing the regard which we have for the men who joined for the War only from their civilian employment. Nor do I feel that there is any particular claim which the hostility men can put forward which compares in any way with that of the ex-Regular men. The hostility men were enlisted on special contracts, which expired with the War, and in very many cases, notably the one quoted by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Motion, the telegraph boys, they went back to their jobs and counted their seniority. They went to the War and came back with their jobs secure, and universally throughout the country with their seniority secured. That being so, I do not see that there is any very difficult precedent created if we give this or some other concession to the Regular men and refuse it to the temporary men.
I am hopeful that in some direction or other the Chancellor of the Exchequer may perhaps be able to indicate that he will be able to do something to meet us in this matter. If he is unable to do so, it
places us in an exceedingly awkward position. I realise that it is not his job to get us out of that position. I wish it were, because one could rely upon him to do it. It does place some of us in a very difficult position, because we feel strongly that these ex-regulars should, if possible, get some concession. We are partly impressed with that view because of the extraordinarily moderate and serious way in which their campaign, if it may be so termed, has been conducted. There have been organisations which have come before this House with threats and suggestions that if this or that were not given there would be upheavals of this or that sort, and too often suggestions that benefit should be given, accompanied by thoughtless proposals of that sort, calculated to frighten us, have succeeded.
Here is a case where a proposal which appears just is logically put forward, and put forward with good grace, with persistence it is true, but nevertheless without threats and without any of those approaches which naturally put our backs up and make us give way only with reluctance. Here is an opportunity where a concession might be made, not simply because it is a good case, but because it would perhaps show to the numerous organisations throughout the land which seem to have their very being in trying to secure concessions for somebody, that a gentle, kindly, sympathtic approach is better than to come to Parliament or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with bludgeons.

Major TASKER: There is one point which I think has not been stressed tonight in the attempt to compare the soldier with the civilian, and it is that the two conditions of service are not comparable. You cannot compare the sheltered industry of men working in the Civil Service with the professional soldier, who is earning his livelihood on the burning plains of India, or in the chilly blasts of Chitral, who is risking life and limb and condemned, perhaps, to go for days without water. It seems to me impossible to compare the service of the soldier or the sailor with that of the civil servant.
That being the case, and it being agreed that they are both working for the same employer, the State, I am not concerned so much with the views of hon. Members of this House, because I believe
they are all in accord, but my fears are rather in the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No single Member of this House is such a renowned warrior or has seen service in so many quarters of the world as the right hon. Gentleman. If his argument is going to be, "You, who are advocating economy, now ask me to incur an expenditure," may I, on the principle that a mouse may help a lion sometimes, suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration that there was issued a little time ago a paper giving a return of the appointments in the public service carrying remuneration of £2,000 a year and upwards. Prior to 1913–14, there were 98 such appointments, and in 1925–26 there were 309. The difference between the one figure and the other is something like £400,000. To show that this is applicable to the discussion now before the House, I would point out in connection with the officers in the high command of the Army and the Territorial Force, that they have increased from 17 to 58 in these years. The money required to do justice to the men concerned with this Motion, £23,000, could be provided by the elimination of the 14 Territorial Army divisional commanders who were not in existence when the War broke out.
There is another direction in which it would be far better to do justice to the case of the ex-naval and ex-army men if economies could be effected in certain educational matters. It does not, for instance, matter to the ordinary child whether the polysyllabic word is a verb or not. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to show intellectual courage just as he showed courage on the battlefields which he visited and on which he fought. I cannot think that any representative of the Government would wish to deprive the professional soldier of any opportunity supplementing his income and ensuring that it will be a living wage when he arrives at the age of 60.

Major G. DAVIES: I should like to add a word in support of the Motion before the House, and from a point of view that has not been stressed very much this evening. We are just now considering the Estimates for the three fighting services. Ever since the War one of the questions that has caused considerable anxiety has been the recruiting in
adequate numbers of efficient young men for the Navy, Army and Air Force. Whether from war weariness or other causes it is necessary for those responsible to try and make these Services sufficiently attractive in order to overcome the obstacles which have prevented us getting a sufficient number of recruits. The Motion before the House has a very vital connection with that question. It concerns the outlook of young fellows who are joining the Services. One of the objects of those who have the interests of the Services at heart is that there should be before the young fellows who dedicate their services to the State a continuity of outlook which will justify them in taking the step. When a man joins the Forces it does generally unfit him for the ordinary battle of civilian life, if at the prime of life he leaves the actual fighting Services, and particularly is that the case with our newest arm, the Air Force, in which the flying man has such a short life. Therefore, when a man chooses this career he has to consider what he will make when he goes back to civil life, and from that point of view this Motion has a very distinct bearing.
10.0 P.M.
Undoubtedly there has been for many years a grievance on what has been called deferred pay. The total amount involved is not great, and many of the speeches which have been delivered seem to be based on the idea that the Motion before us is to approve of this additional financial expenditure whereas it is confined to setting up a Committee. The Government will be well advised to take up the position that there is real ground for dissatisfaction, that it is more than the readjustment of a grievance, and that there is a marked difference between what have been called "hostility men" and the regular serving soldier, sailor and airman. As a non-regular I completely subscribe to that. Those who joined the Forces for the duration of the War were men who had a certain amount of civilian activity or had had education which was intended to fit them for civilian life, and although the time they were in khaki was an handicap, it was not by any means such a handicap as that experienced by the regular soldier, sailor and airman. Therefore, I urge the Government to take up this position, that this Motion is not definitely committing the House to
the actual expenditure involved; that it will consent to the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate the complete deails of the matter, so that those who claim they have a grievance can be satisfied that their case is thoroughly investigated.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Before I offer any comments on the speech just made by the hon. and gallant Member, I should like to point to the appearance of the Labour Benches. We can judge of the interest taken in this question by their appearance; they are empty, while the Conservative Benches are comparatively full. As for the Liberal party, despite the extraordinary and varied number of its leaders, we are glad to see two Members of the rank and. file in the House at present. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) concluded his remarks by saying that the Motion was to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question. That is exactly what the Motion on the Paper is not. If we pass it, we are committing ourselves to support certain recommendations of a Committee which sat 20 years ago. There is no question of an inquiry The Motion is to "Report upon the best means of giving effect to the recommendations of the Ward Committee of 1906;" and if we pass this Resolution, we are committed to a definite line. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for a general inquiry to see whether we cannot help the old soldier in regard to employment in the civil services, and if there was a demand for a Select Committee to inquire into that question, I should find it difficult to resist it because since 1906 we have had the development of the Air Force, which has introduced a new class of young soldier. Whatever the recommendations of this Committee may have been, they surely cannot apply to this young Service, the Air Force.
There is another point, and a more general one. The Regular Army looks to the civil services for its after posts, but the Regular Army is a scheme complete in itself, just as is the Navy. A man serves for seven years with the Colours, and then for five years with the Reserves, during which he gets reserve pay. That is a complete engagement; it starts and ends in 12 years. Therefore, so to speak, it is a scheme complete in itself. I do not see how you are going to put that on
top of a Civil Service pension. We are talking now of economies in the Army. The pay of new entrants is being cut down. If you are going to pack on the top of that a Civil Service pension at an earlier age, does it not mean that you will have to go again into the whole question of pay in the Army, particularly that of the new entrants? Surely you are increasing the value of their emoluments very considerably. If there was any justification for the cutting down, we had better re-open the whole scheme and see what their present value would be under the whole system. This is not a little matter; it is a very wide and big matter. If you increase the pensions at one end, you will have to go into the whole question from start to finish. While I would be glad if we could get a Committee which would go into the whole question, as to how we can employ ex-service men in the Civil Service and elsewhere, I hold that by simply adopting the recommendations of a Committee that sat 20 years ago—recommendations which would apply to the Air Force although it did not exist 20 years ago—we should be dealing with the matter in a half-hearted way and not justly. Therefore, very reluctantly, I shall be compelled to vote against the Motion. We should be very foolish indeed if we wholeheartedly, out of a sense of generosity, gave way to the attractiveness of the arguments of the Mover of the Motion.


            Dr. DRUMMOND
            SHIELS
          : The hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) made some rather humorous remarks about the state of the Labour Benches as compared with those on the Government side of the House. If he recollected the state of the benches opposite on many occasions when we have moved Resolutions from this side of the House, he would come to the conclusion that the advantage is with us, even to-night. I have pleasure in supporting this Motion. I do so perhaps on somewhat different grounds from those put forward by the other side. Personally, I would support the Motion on the ground of co-ordination of the method of remuneration of all State servants. We believe that the State should be a model employer, and that it should set the standard for private employers in regard to the treatment of its servants. There is no question that those
coming into the Civil Service somewhat late in life are faced with the fact that when the time arrives for them to retire their pension may be quite unlike what it should be, especially as coming from the State. That has been a difficulty which has been investigated of late with regard to the Civil Service. At the present time also we have a Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office sitting in regard to the question of the superannuation of local government officers, in whose case it is felt that some principle of just superannuation should also prevail. In that connection the question is being debated whether the present optional Act should be made compulsory on all local authorities. The question at issue is one which is very frequently coining before that Committee'—the case of persons who come into local government service at a comparatively late age. The question of the value to be put on the previous service is one which has to be faced in the interests of justice. I think that in the case of soldiers and sailors and airmen who have been in the service of the State, and who have given efficient service, some part, if not the whole part, of the value of that service should be retained to them when they enter another branch of the service of the State. For these reasons I certainly think that the suggested Select Committee should be appointed. It is quite true that in this, as in the other cases which I have mentioned, the financial burden might be considerable, but that is a matter into which the Select Committee could inquire. It is very difficult to give on a superficial examination accurate figures, or to speculate on what the probable cost of any scheme would be. in the interests of the whole Civil Service and of the further application of the principle for which we stand, I strongly support the Motion.

Captain GARRO-JONES: It is not very often that private Members get opportunities to bring forward Motions at all, and I think that on this occasion, one of the few occasions left to us, the least we can expect is that one of the Ministers on the Front Bench shall state what the attitude of the Government is towards this proposal. I do not speak only for myself, for hon. Members on
the other side have appealed to the Minister to state his views. This is not an occasion on which a conspiracy of silence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary is justifiable.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I had no intention of intervening in the Debate, but I wish to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Motion. I speak as an old soldier who spent a great deal of his life in the Army. It seems to me to be very unfair that those men who have served in the Army should not have the same advantages as those who served in the Civil Service all their lives. It is obviously very unfair that a man who, perhaps, spends his whole life in the place in which he was born should be allowed to count the whole of his service towards pension, whereas a man who is serving the same master, and serving that master in a foreign clime and risking his life, perhaps on active service, should not be allowed to count his service towards pension. The arguments against the Motion have been very few and, as far as I can make out, extraordinarily weak. The Motion has been supported on all sides of the House, and very largely on this side. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to produce some rather more valid arguments than any we have had so far. The only possible argument against the Motion is on the score of expense. The sum of £23,000 a year has been mentioned. That is a very small sum to spend on the men who have served their country well, have served it in various climes and circumstances, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt the Motion.

Mr. PIELOU: I wish to support the Motion. I am one of those soldiers who joined the Army at the outbreak of War, and I have the greatest admiration for the old soldier. I suppose that I was one of the first of the new Army to find myself in a regular sergeants' mess, and I can assure the House that I received every encouragement from those men who had been in the Army for a number of years and who taught us young soldiers so much. After all, every one of us realises how much we owe to the "Contemptible Army."
In those ranks I found many men who had no future—nothing to look forward to—and I support this Resolution because I think it only right that men who have served in the Army, Navy or Air Force should have that service recognised for pensionable purposes. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer has realised the feeling that exists in the House on this question. If he objects, as one hon. and gallant Member has objected, to the consideration of the Report of the Ward Committee, perhaps in view of that feeling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to meet us half-way and appoint a Select Committee to go into the whole question.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I do not quite follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown), who said that, bceause the Ward Committee sat 20 years ago, its recommendations would be inapplicable to-day. I do not think conditions have changed so much in the meantime, nor do I think there will be any particular difficulty in applying the recommendations of the Committee to the Air Force although that force did not exist at the time when the Committee sat. I think the reasons put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) were extremely sound and to the point with regard to the better quality of recruits which the adoption of this proposal would bring about. I do not think, however, we should expect too much from it, because the dimensions of the Civil Service are scarcely wide enough to include all the men who would be discharged from the Navy, Army and Air Force. We must also remember that it will not do to have the Civil Service too full of reservists, otherwise, in case of mobilisation, the Civil Service would be seriously depleted. Therefore, although I believe this proposal would do good, yet, as I say, we cannot expect too much from it. At the same time, I believe it will be an act of justice to the men who are serving on regular engagements in the Navy, Army and Air Force, and who, at present, as the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has said, are, to some extent, victimised, compared with men who joined the Civil Service early in life and have not served in any of the fighting Services.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I appear somewhat reluctant or dilatory in intervening in this Debate, it has certainly not been because—as one hon. Member has suggested—I am engaged or the Government are engaged in a conspiracy of silence. I have only been actuated by a strong desire to show respect to the right hon. Gentleman who at the moment leads the Opposition. I thought I should not unnecessarily thrust myself in before the remarks which I understood the right hon. Gentleman intended to deliver to the House speaking with the official authority of the Labour party. Remembering, as I did, that twice already to-day I have not been able to reply to his remarks, and wishing to treat his very able and very frequent contributions to our debates with the attention which they deserve, I thought it might be in accordance with his wishes that I should postpone any observations I had to make until after he had spoken, instead of exposing him in the position in which he now sits, to the risk of having his contribution to our discussion curtailed or possibly even cut out altogether, because of the inordinate length to which my performance may extend.
I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and I do not quarrel at all with the tone of any of the speeches, nor with the general intention and mood of those who have brought this Motion forward. But it is not quite as simple a matter as it appears on the surface, and I propose, if the House will permit me, to examine it in three separate aspects—its intrinsic merits, its comparative merits, and the consequential difficulties which would arise if the Motion were carried. What is the case which excites, and justly excites, the sympathy of the House? Here are two men in the Post Office or in the Customs, serving side by side. One man has served seven years in the Army or the Navy, and in consequence of that he is seven years worse off for pension than his comrade serving next to him, who has never been through the exacting round of military or of naval duty in the service of the Crown, and naturally there is this feeling: Why, because we have served the Crown, afloat or ashore, because we have given some of the nest years of our life to the arduous military service of the State, should we now find ourselves in a worse position than this
comrade of ours, who has never been out of England and who went straight into one of the sheltered professions at the beginning of his manhood? I share to the full the views which have been expressed that this is a cause of heartburning, and of explicable heartburning, and as the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) has reminded me, I appear to have expressed some opinions upon the subject myself as long ago as 1908, in the pre-War days. I do not think I expressed them in answer to a Parliamentary question, because the date mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was a date on which the House was not sitting, but I certainly did express, through the agency of a private secretary, general sympathy with the principle that military and naval service should count towards a pension in the Civil Service of the Crown.

Mr. W. BAKER: It is not uncommon to reply to Parliamentary questions by letters through a private secretary, and I have no doubt that that is what happened in this case.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that was the case. I think that the question was put on another occasion—I am not at all sure it may not have been an electoral occasion—and I gave an answer on the spur of the moment, and afterwards wrote to correct and amplify that answer. In the answer I said I was generally in favour, in principle, of continuity of service, and I understood the Treasury were in favour of that principle, too. In this I was completely misinformed, because for 30 years the Treasury have, with unbroken persistency, under all its various heads opposed this proposal. Of course, I am bound to find myself exposed to certain charges of inconsistency in this matter, but it is my duty now to urge upon the House some questionable proposal of expenditure, and now to urge upon the House the rejection of some very desirable demand. That is the duty which falls to everyone who holds the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all I can say is that all these questions, whether in the nature of expenditure, or in the direction of economy—of refusing expenditure—are considered to the best of our ability by the Government, that we take what we consider is the right decision, and then it is the duty of the Minister in charge to
do his best to urge the House to act in accordance with the decision to which the responsible Government themselves have come. I have said what views I expressed pre-War, and I have now got my letter of the 23rd April, 1908. It is:
Dear Sir,
I am desired by Mr. Churchill to say that his answer to the question put to him without notice to-night by Colonel Seely on behalf of the postmen is as follows:
He is of opinion that the Treasury should take into consideration ex-naval and military service in reckoning service towards pension, and he has reason to suppose they are prepared to adopt this course.
I understand the Prime Minister also, any my right hon. Friend signed a memorial quite as recently as 1911 in favour of this scheme. But we are no longer in the pre-War period. The problem itself has altered in many ways, and the financial position of the country has changed even more remarkably. At the present time, every demand for expenditure has to be scrutinised with the utmost severity. We endeavour, as far as possible, to do so, and if on any occasion we show any signs of failing in our task, the House is every ready to assist us in the duty, and to keep us strictly up to the mark. But it is not only on the individual merits that you can attempt to judge this question of two men serving in the Civil Service, one with a military record and one with no military record, and compare their cases. That is much too narrow a field in which to examine the question. You must also consider the relations of those men.
Of course, if the House wished to embark upon a general policy of benevolence, an excursion into the field of Parliamentary generosity, this would be a very pleasing and very defensible direction in which we could advance. If we were looking round at the present moment for means of spending money on improving the general position of State servants and civil servants—if that were the requirement of the time; if that were the view of the House, then, I admit frankly, that this would be an extremely good and pleasant occasion in which to discharge that function. But that is not our position. Our position is exactly the opposite. We have to trim, to restrict, to retrench, to deny, and that is not only the view of the Government and the conviction of the Government, but it is, I trust
and believe, the resolution of the House. Even if we were in a position to expand and to improve the general treatment of civil and State servants at large, even if we had a certain amount of money to be distributed in a more generous and broadminded administration of these affairs, I would submit to the House that there are many other cases which would rank before the hard—admittedly hard—case which has been so attractively placed before us this evening by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion.
There are the claims for compensation by those who suffered from air raids and bombardments during the War. These claims were scaled down from £25,000,000 to £12,500,000 by the Sumner Commission. Only £5,000,000 has been paid. It is the intention of the Government, as of the preceding Government, and of the Government before that, that only £5,000,000 shall be paid on that account. Take the case which is, in my opinion, even a harder case—that of the pre-War service pensioners—the soldiers, sailors and policemen who left before the new and increased rates, appropriate to the increased cost of living, had come into operation. Some small alleviation has been made, but the fact remains that these pre-War pensioners have scarcely received half of the real pensions value that the post-War pensioners have received. I have been told the case which shows how very capricious fortune is in these matters. It is the case of a police officer who was due to retire on 31st March, 1919, on pre-War pension terms. Owing to some exigency of the service which arose, he was employed for one hour on the 1st April, 1919, and his pension was consequently doubled.
To meet the claims of the air raids and bombardments £7,500,000 would be required, and to equalise the pensions to the values of pre-War pensions would be another £2,000,000 or £2,500,000. Thus we have already found at least £10,000,000 in claims which would, I think, justly rank in front of this proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. We cannot afford it—this expense. The Government have decided against both these, in my opinion, harder cases than the one before us. There have been three General Elections. They have not altered the refusal of the House of
Commons to agree to any further satisfaction of these claims. Is this the time, on the very eve of the introduction of the Economy Bill, to go out of our way to re-open a question which, as I shall show, is quite indefinite in itself, and which cannot possibly be considered apart from a whole series of other claims, in support of all of which eloquent and good-hearted speeches can be made, and for the satisfaction of all of which the House would be very glad to make exertions, if circumstances were favourable?
I turn from the comparative merits to the intrinsic merits of this case, and here, I am bound to say, that I cannot feel that the intrinsic merits, apart from good will and benevolence, have been at all sustained by the speeches which have been made. In the first instance, there is no contractual claim. No one has contended that. There is no question of the State breaking faith with anybody. The men concerned entered the Army or the Navy on certain terms. After serving their period for which they had engaged, the vast majority passed out, or were thrown out, into civil life, to shift for themselves, sink or swim, in the hard battle of life, without permanent or pensionable employment of any kind being guaranteed to them. A minority, a small minority in proportion—considerable in numbers but small relatively—were fortunate enough to obtain permanent employment under the State, with new chances of pension to replace those which they had formally renounced and abandoned on leaving the fighting services. The State, as an hon. Gentleman reminded us, is supposed to be the model employer. Certainly the State affords far greater security than the average working man find in any other sphere of life. Soldiers and sailors are continually endeavouring to secure further employment in the service of the Crown. It is the aim of all associations which are concerned with the welfare of soldiers and sailors, regimental associations and other welfare associations which look after the military man—it is their main aim to secure an ever-larger proportion of vacancies in the Civil Service for the soldier and sailor. Therefore, I repeat that soldiers and sailors who obtain subsequent employment in the civil services of the Crown are regarded, and regard themselves, as
more fortunate than those who do not obtain such employment. Why, then, out of all the grievances, out of all the hardships, which we see around in the aftermath of Armageddon, should this particular class be singled out by the Mover of this Motion for a new and special improvement at the expense of the general taxpayer?
If we deal with this case on grounds of equity or logic—on alleged grounds of equity or logic, what are we going to do for the man who has served seven years in the Army or the Navy and is now in industry, now working in a mill or a mine, with no prospect of pension and high risk of unemployment? He has served the Crown on exactly the same basis as these ex-service civil servants, he has shared the hardships, the dangers and the vicissitudes of the military or naval service ashore or afloat, he has made the same contract with the State. With what justice, certainly with what logic, can we add to the benefits of one who is already in a more fortunate position while ignoring altogether, just because he is unorganised, and because they are unformulated, the claims of the other? Therefore it is our opinion that there is no case in law nor contractual obligation for this proposal, nor, if we extend the view beyond the limited scope in which the Mover of the Motion confined himself is there any case in equity. There is a case for good will and benevolence, but that is something which we are not in a position to dwell upon at the present moment.
Now I turn to the consequential difficulties of the proposal. This proposal would carry us very much further than the supporters of the Motion have been willing to admit. The argument which they used about the onerous and arduous service in the fighting forces given under the most honourable circumstances is of a much wider application than that which they assigned to it. The pre-War Army was a very small thing compared with the Army during the War, and then very small numbers were involved, but now, with a tax-burdened country after a great War, far larger numbers of men are involved in the demand which is now made than could ever have been included 16 or 17 years ago.
The Mover of this Motion and the hon. Member for North Camberwell asked us
to be careful to draw a distinction between what he called the "hostility men"—this is a new term to me—and the soldiers. It is the first time anyone has ever attempted to draw such a distinction before. He wished to see the hostility men excluded and the regular soldiers and sailors included. Why should they be excluded? Our Civil Service is crowded at present with ex-service civil servants, with war service only. I do not mean those who left the Civil Service to go into the Army, but those who came from the fighting forces to the Civil Service at the close of the War for the first time. It is crowded with these men, and they far outnumber the ex-regulars, but by what standard of logic, justice, reason or even of sanity can you make out that four years past service in the Army of a man who never saw a shot fired is to count in priority against four years service in the bloody trenches of France and Flanders.
It is said that the civilian fighters in the Great War—the hostility men, as they are called—received a gratuity. So did the regular soldiers who served; they received a gratuity too; and if it is said that it is not proposed to give this advantage which is claimed to any class of ex-regular soldiers, or to ex-soldiers who have already received a special gratuity on account of the Great War, then what we are invited to do is to exclude altogether services in the Great War from counting for the purposes of these improved conditions in regard to pension. How is it possible for the House to accept such a proposition? If this principle were conceded, does anyone suppose that we could defend it for a single Session? If we were to say we would allow professional service in the Army, apart from service in the Great War, to count for pension in the Civil Service, but not the service of hostility men who served in the Great War, how long does this House suppose that any Government of any party could hold such a line of argument? It would not be possible to resist the demand for the inclusion of all service, and especially the highest form of service, namely, active service, as counting for pension. You might have two men serving side by side, one who has never seen a shot fired, and you are told that he is to have five years' service credited to him, while the other man, who was all through the Great War,
is told that that does not count, as he is only a hostility man. To what absurdity is my hon. and gallant Friend, from the very best motives, endeavouring to lead the House of Commons? If this Motion were passed, I have no doubt whatever that in a subsequent Session my hon. and gallant Friend or some other hon. Member, actuated by equally amiable motives, would come forward and propose to sweep away this absurd barrier, which excluded all this mass of hostility men, who bore the brunt of the War, from the privilege already conceded to those who had given a far less severe form of military or naval service; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days got up to make a protest, my hon. and gallant Friend or his successor would say with great effect and force, "You conceded the whole position from the moment when you allowed the case of the non-active service regular soldier, and you deprived yourself of every foothold to resist this just demand. Now you must carry it through to the end"; and he would be quite right.
This would involve a payment, not of £23,000 a year, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, but, as I am credibly advised, further charges, so far as the civilians who served in the Great War are concerned, amounting to upwards of £6,000,000, and a permanent charge, so far as the regulars are concerned, which would represent a capital sum of £2,500,000. The figures, therefore, are very large. Moreover, I do not believe that we could take a step like this without at the same time reconsidering all those other cases, only two of which I have ventured to mention to the House to-night. I now want to ask this question; Is it really in the interests of the fighting Services themselves—of the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are now serving—that the House should pass this Resolution? The Navy is not much involved, becaue there it is mainly long service, but the Army is very much concerned.
It is a serious drain on the manhood of the country to maintain upwards of 100,000 men in permanent service abroad, mostly in the East. They are taken at 18, and discharged at 25. Many of them have not learned a trade, or obtained a
footing in civil life, except those who are fortunate enough to get into the Government service. Many of them are debilitated by an Indian sun or from some other cause. The one great object is to get them the largest possible share that public policy will allow—for you must consider the problem of the reserves, and you must not deplete your Civil Service completely on mobilisation—the one great object is to get as many as possible of these men into the Civil Service of the Crown, the Post Office, the Customs, the Prison service, and so forth.
At the same time that you have this desire and policy, which is the policy that we are pursuing and extending, and which we intend to develop, as far as possible, to greater lengths even than has been the case hitherto—at the same time you have the demand for economy, and you have the stern criticism to which all the Departments are exposed, especially in regard to their civil staff. I am sure, if you passed this Resolution, you would find that it would follow quite naturally that there would be great reluctance on the part of Departments, under the harrow of needful retrenchment, to take into their service an ever-increasing proportion of men who were saddled with five, six or seven years' extra pension rights above and beyond what would accrue to a man taken indirectly. Therefore I believe you would defeat your own objects in conserving the main cause of the soldiers and sailors, and that it would be a deterrent upon their employment instead of benefiting them as we all desire.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for an inquiry, and he says, "Let us, at any rate, meet half way." I think the House should make up its mind about the matter. The facts are perfectly well known and have been well known during the last 25 years. It is needless cruelty to have an inquiry unless you have real intentions in the matter. It will only disturb a good many thousand households, you will only raise expectations which no Government will be found ready in the present time or within measurable time to grant, and you will in the end have inflicted suffering upon those whom it is your desire to help. The Government feel bound to give a clear guidance on this matter to the House. We say it is a matter of policy, that it affects and compromises the general finance, and we
believe that, if this Motion were passed, it would lead at a subsequent date to a collision between the Executive, who would decline to obey, and the House of Commons. For all those reasons, we feel it absolutely necessary to vote against the Motion and to call upon our friends to support us in that course.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise at the first opportunity to follow the right hon. Gentleman and to explain how I misinterpreted his natural hesitation to take part in the Debate. I am not aware that the reason why our expectation of hearing him was delayed so long was that the right hon. Gentleman was waiting for my contribution. I do believe the reason why he hesitated to speak was because of the reluctance he felt in having to oppose a proposal to increase the expenditure of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly showed more enthusiasm this afternoon in defending the expenditure of millions than he has shown this evening in opposing the paltry expenditure of a few thousand pounds a year. It was my intention, if I did intervene in the Debate, to explain the attitude of the Labour party towards this Motion.
The Chancellor would, I think, have had no hesitation at all in rising earlier in the Debate if he had really known the purport of the observations I should offer to the House. I do not think the Motion, in the terms in which it appears on the Paper, is one which either the Government will accept or the House of Commons ought to support. I think the hon. Member who put it down has been most unfortunate in framing its terms. He asks the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee, not to inquire but to accept the conclusions and recommendations of a Committee that sat 20 years ago. He appears to have forgotten that in the intervening period there has been a great War and that that calamitous incident has completely changed the circumstances as they existed 20 years ago. It seems to me little less than absurd to ask the House of Commons to take the recommendations of a Committee 20 years old and apply them without a new inquiry in the changed circumstances of to-day.
I am not going to express any views at all on the merits of the question. I
have views, but the only thing I want to say is this. The Labour party have, I believe, on more than one occasion raised this question, but we have never raised it in the form in which it is raised in this Motion. All we have asked is that a Committee should be appointed to make a new inquiry into this question, and that is the position we occupy tonight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be a mockery of the expectations of the people who are interested in this question if a Committee were appointed unless it was the intention of the Government to act upon the recommendations of that Committee. Yes, but on the other hand, if no inquiry is held, this agitation will continue, and I think if we had a Committee appointed, even if its conclusions were adverse to this demand, those who have for more than 30 years been carrying on this agitation would be satisfied, and if we do not grant an inquiry this demand will be continued and it will be raised in the House of Commons year after year. Therefore I ask the Government to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter without any of the restrictions that are laid down in the terms of this Motion, and if we vote in support of the Motion we shall do so not because we accept the terms on the Paper, but as an expression of our view that an inquiry into this question ought to be held.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: After the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it is hardly to be expected that this House should persist, with his authority against it, in giving expression to the Motion that has been brought forward.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute after Eleven o'Clock.